Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eggs Beauregard


 * 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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Eggs Beauregard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:MERGEREASON bullet points 3 and 4. As the article is "similar to Eggs Benedict", it should be merged with that article just like all other variants of that dish. Also, it would greatly benefit from the context in Eggs Benedict. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The content in this article can't merge to Eggs Benedict article. I haven't found any reliable sources so far that would support this. I've removed the line causing the confusion from the article. The Bloomsbury book explains that the term is used for two different dishes. Hickoryglaze (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think I agree with Hickoryglaze here. This seems to be a distinct dish, with it's own variations, and reliable sourcing to support it. I could see a "See also" entry on Eggs Benedict maybe being appropriate, though. Waggie (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which subject are you advocating keeping? Unless many of the sources are talking about both, we have two subjects here, which shouldn't be covered in one article. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm advocating keeping Eggs Beauregard as a separate article (hence the keep vote, rather than a merge vote). There's reliable sourcing that discusses Eggs Beauregard independently of Eggs Benedict. Perhaps not the best example, but Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet are both variants/successors to Ethernet, and have standalone (albeit problematic) articles as there is reliable sourcing that discusses them independently - would you advocate merging these back into Ethernet? Waggie (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but which eggs beauregard? The article starts "Eggs Beauregard is an American term that is used for two egg dishes." Unless the sources predominantly talk about it being two dishes (and based on what I'm seeing, they don't), we should not have an article about two subjects. If we have two albums with the title "Greatest Hits", we don't keep it because both of them together return enough sources for notability -- we need to split it up and determine which is notable. If one is a variant on the other, we need sources to say that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems kind of silly to me to try and narrow down the article to only one particular recipe for Eggs Beauregard. It's a name that's gained attention WP:SIGCOV, and they're related dishes. That's my two cents. It's OK to disagree. :) Waggie (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a different recipe; it's a different subject. That's why the article says at the very start that it's an article about two subjects by the same name. They are both eggs, yes. Unless we're writing an article about a word itself, it's a WP:DICDEF (and WP:NOR) problem to write about two subjects just because they have the same name unless sources explicitly cover them together. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From DICDEF: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns." (emphasis added) - I think that the article covers more than linguistic concerns and they are related by having the same name. Either way, I think it's time for us to leave the discussion to others. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively with eggs benedict. Among the high quality sources I'm seeing, there's a clear connection with the other topic. E.g. the cited NY Times article: "Eggs Beauregard is a twist on the familiar Eggs Benedict" and Houstonia: "Eggs Benedict, southern style." &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly prefer deletion to merging. Your logic is backwards, we can't merge an ambiguous term without explaining the ambiguity and it doesn't belong in the Eggs Benedict article. A passing comment in the NY Times is not enough to merge these articles. I would object strongly to my content being used this way I will object to the addition at the Eggs Benedict article as well. Hickoryglaze (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We have sources that would clearly justify inclusion in the benedict article, so if it's deleted from here it would obviously be redirected where it's mentioned elsewhere. To the extent this is about two different subjects and one of them isn't necessarily considered a benedict, that wouldn't be merged (hence "selectively"). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 'especially without the input of editors at that article who should have been given a chance to comment before a complicated "selective merger" was forced on them. (I am reluctant to outright support deletion as I think Hickoryglaze is most likely frustrated here, but I support their not wanting to circumvent the usual talk page discussion that should take place before mergers, especially a selective one that raise the possibly that inappropriate content will be pushed into the article.) It's not what AfD is for. Dartslilly (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:28, 17 February 2020 (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.