Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamburg steak


 * 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hamburg steak
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't see this as a standalone article. The content is very similar with Salisbury steak and it has been suggested that it be merged with Hamburger steak. Clearly, there is a some serious overlap between at these articles and it is not clear whether this article is distinct and worthy of being separate from the mentioned articles. Therefore, I believe it should be deleted or merged. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep until a reliable source shows the relation between these foods. The 'Hamburg steak' article has impressive older citations that indicate that 'Hamburg steak' developed into the modern hamburger. The 'Salisbury steak' article has impressive USDA citations but has only a very weak Japanese cultural citation to 'Hamburger steak'. From the citations, 'Hamburg steak' (citations for 1836 & 1844) has existed long before the 'Salisbury steak' (1897). Given that both articles have quite good references, I would leave them as they are. jmcw (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - this appears to be sufficiently different from the standard Salisbury to merit its own article. GBooks and GRecipies show enough that I believe notability is clearly established, especially when you add in gNews. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jmcw37. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 08:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as harmless, if slightly redundant, article. I also agree with Jmcw37 and Bonkers. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2013 (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.