Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velveting


 * 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.  kur  ykh   05:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Velveting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Wikipedia is neither a cookbook nor a how-to. The term could be merged into Chinese cuisine but I would find a redirect "velveting" far too unspecific to be associated with cookery. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is a cooking technique, then it's possible that this could be written about without sounding like User:Betty Crocker was the author. It's supposed to be a method of cooking meat so as to keep it from getting dry.  I've heard of velveting rabbit, so perhaps notability can be established. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It turns out there is a ton of information out there about this technique; it is highly notable. I just rewrote the article so that it is no longer cookbookish. I added three sources but there were dozens more I could have added. The article is a stub but could be expanded. Nice pun on the Velveteen Rabbit, Mandsford. ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep And good work on the improvements by Melanie. Mandsford (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: While the article is no longer a recipe I still don't think we need a standalone for this. Let's merge it to Chinese cuisine. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What is your specific rationale for deletion, now that it is no longer a cookbook/how-to article (your original rationale)? Notability? There are a ton of references in reliable sources. Brevity? The fact that an article is a stub is no reason to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I liked it better when De728631 was advocating delete. Merging to Chinese cuisine strikes me as one of the odder suggestions that I've read.  Let's improve the article on aspirin and then merge it to drugstore while we're at it. Mandsford (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the general opinion here seems to be that the subject as such is notable enough, but leaving it as a stub implies that the article can be extended beyond stub quality. And I for one don't see how there is much more to say than what has already been written. If it turns out one day that velveting is the non-plus-ultra cooking technique for whatever reason, we can always break it from Chinese cuisine for a new standalone, but better have it in a proper context now than all alone. That's why I now think it should be merged. De728631 (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the good work to improve the article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:29, 12 May 2010 (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.