Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lobster à la Riseholme


 * 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. Consensus that this meets WP:FICTION, which is just another way of saying that it meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lobster à la Riseholme

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fictional recipe. Fails WP:N, no significant coverage in independent sources. Article is mainly comprised of summary of the novels. Sources are negligible and rely on a recipe by Nigella Lawson Paul75 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * keep This is not a "fictional recipe" per WP:HOAX, but rather it's a fictional plot device in the form of a recipe. Unusually, this has then generated secondary coverage by gastronomes as a discussion of the fictional source. The literary source, Mapp and Lucia, is a well-known and clearly notable series. We have a great many fiction articles that suffer badly from excessive in-universe discussion. This is one of the rare exceptions where some in-universe matter is actually discussed by acceptable external sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no external sources though - the sole reference for the entire subject matter is a Nigella Lawson recipe Paul75 (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article describes, clearly and accurately, the sources of this recipe, which is an important element in the original novels and which has, as stated in the article, notably been reused by other authors. There is no Hoax or deception involved here, simply good Encyclopedic description of a notable literary device. Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Used by one other author, not authors as you claim, who wrote a sequel to the novels after the death of BensonPaul75 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The usual criterion in cases of articles about things in a fictional world is whether they then take on a life outside that created by the original author (the Lilliput principle). I do think that the current article makes that case, and the material would not fit easily into the other related articles. --AJHingston (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Andy Dingley et al. Fictional plot points can be notable, and with two reliable sources, I appears to be so. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. It furnishes an important and recurring plot point in a series of notable novels and as such has led to published attempts by some cooks (who are themselves notable) to recreate it. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with all of the above. This seems an important part of a series of fairly well-known books.21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxdlink (talk • contribs)
 * 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.