Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curlywurlymegathingy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Majorly 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Curlywurlymegathingy

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable dessert, article provides no context other than "it's available at many pubs in the UK". Was prod'ded and confirmed by another author before an anon removed the prod without comment. JuJube 11:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article clearly states that the list of ingredients is from the menu of the Pubs in question. A photo of the menu can be obtained if it makes things any easier? Chris, 11 January 2007
 * Added duplicate article. JuJube 11:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. 33 Google hits indicates that this desert is not so widespread. The article consists of a list of ingredients (Wikipedia is not a recipe) and an unsourced passage on an informal contest held by college students with no widespread attention or notability whatsoever (Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information). Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NFT – "...is served at a number of pub restaurants across the UK" but only goes on to mention one (in Grantham). Bubba HoTep 12:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonnotablethingy. ... disco spinster   talk  14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by 'unsourced' passage, when it was written by one of the people in question? Chris 15:57, 11 January 2007
 * Yes, that is rather the problem. We are an encyclopedia, or at least we are trying to be.  Do you think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to contain coverage of eating games invented by you and your friends?  Answer should be no.  delete (in current state)  I rather doubt we can find any reliable sources on the pudding in question, but if we can then not opposed to a recreation.  Morwen - Talk 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm only asking the question. I'm pretty new to wikipedia (well, editing articles and such), and it wasn't me who created the article in the first place, just checking what is allowed and what isn't. I find it difficult to believe that there isn't any information in wikipedia that is from someone's knowledge rather than a 'source'. Chris 17:36, 11 January 2007
 * See WP:V.
 * The fact that there is an eating game associated with the dessert should not have a negative effect on whether that dessert is eligable or not. If the dessert is reasonably widespread, and can be shown to be, then should this not factor? Dave 18:12 11 Janurary 2007 (UTC)
 * This is indeed what I said. Morwen - Talk 08:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:V and WP:RS for Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliable sources respectively. This is what is meant by "unsourced" in this context. Bubba HoTep 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional references added. Dave. 23:59, 11 January 2007 UTC
 * The first is a web page that makes no mention at all of this subject. The second is a PDF of a restaurant's menu.  It supports none of the content of this article, such as the eating competition.  It doesn't even support the part of the article that discusses how this dessert has evolved.  Per our No original research policy, Wikipedia is not for documenting the previously undocumented.  If you wish to have histories of this eating competition and this dessert included in Wikipedia, then those histories must have already been researched and documented, and that documentation published, outside of Wikipedia.  The place for publishing documentation for things that have not been documented before is a book, a journal article, or a web site, not here. Uncle G 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Bwithh 10:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. The actual policy that this falls foul of is No original research. Uncle G 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.