Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Louis-style barbecue


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 19:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

St. Louis-style barbecue

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I hastily deleted this page and redirected it to here. It was reverted, since I deleted it without discussion. Okay. So I'm recommending it for deletion, based on the following criteria:
 * 1) Notability.  Wikipedia's own list of main regional styles of barbecue in the US doesn't list St. Louis.  That's not grounds for deletion in itself, but the fact that three of the four styles listed there (Memphis, Carolinas, Texas) don't seem worthy of having their own article makes me think that this isn't worthy either.
 * 2) Quality.  Lots of phrases here aren't encyclopedia-like, in my opinion.  "Slow cooking over low heat is the key to culinary success here, with a good, smoky grill."  "The result is a surprisingly tender and tasty entrée that is the centerpiece (along with a good St. Louis beer) of many a backyard party in suburban St. Louis."  "A typical menu at a St. Louis-style barbecue includes..."  "Often, the ice cream component will appear in the form of Ted Drewes Frozen Custard, a St. Louis tradition since 1930." "When not practicing the art and science in their own backyards, St. Louisans like..." etc.
 * 3) Citations.  There are very few, including for most of the phrases I quoted above.  Two of the three references are dead links.

Basically, if you took all of the essay-like and uncited material out, you would have something like what I wrote on the page I redirected the article to. That would be a serious "stub" of an article, don't you think? At best, maybe the cuisine of St. Louis as a whole deserves its own article? I don't know. Comments are appreciated. Elchip (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator has objections to the style and phrasing of the article, but has apparently neglected to search for evidence of the notability of the subject. Searching Google Books for '"St Louis Style Barbecue" - Wikipedia' yields 17 results, of which 8 have a preview available. There is significant coverage in at least the following:, , . Google News archive has 20 examples of additional coverage: , many not viewable without payment. As for the other styles, there is considerable coverage in books, magazines, newspaper articles and TV series dedicated to the various styles of barbecue. Edison (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per same rationales as Edison.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Certainly enough non-trivial sources to indicate notability. This,this,and this appear to be pretty detailed coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I submitted this request for deletion, but upon seeing several "keep" votes I decided to overhaul the article instead. I feel that it's much better now than it was before. Elchip (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2011 (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.