Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bing guo

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. Seddon ^talk 01:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bing guo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since it's inception in 2007, this Beijing dessert comes up in absolutely no English sources. I pursued the possibility of a merge with a similar dessert, Talk:Baobing, but there was no connection. I finally found a source on a page of the official Beijing tourism website, but the dates don't confirm who came first. Either this is a copy-vio (please see talk page for more info) or this fails WP:V. Sounds tasty though. Estheim (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding the copy-vio issue, I checked the tourism website and it's a perfect match of the 2010 version, but not the original 2007 version of the article. So it is likely the website took the content from Wikipedia without attribution. Jumpytoo Talk 23:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unsourced, and I've never heard of anything called Bing Guo as a dessert, nor is there any evidence (not even unreliable sources) that points this "dessert" to Beijing. An image search also doesn't have anything concrete either, whether in Chinese or English. The fact it's unsourced already warrants the delete.Kazuha1029 (talk)
• delete. I tried searching for 冰果 but it only turned up anime, primarily Hyouka which has an oddly similar name. Nothing on the desert. 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:F8FC:3D1D:E982:7C1E (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and comment Searching for variations of "冰果" online and masking references to the anime, it seems like the term is simply used for desserts using ice cream (or more generally a cold preparation) and fruit, i.e. popsicles, fruit salads, smoothies, slushies, etc. In other words, it's not one dish but an umbrella term. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be limited to any region. However, the dish in the article does seem to exist. After a bit of auto-translation shenanigans, I was able to boil the term "河鲜儿冰果" down, roughly translating to "hexianer ice bowl", "hexianer" being the mix of ingredients described in the article. Multiple internet sources do say it's a Beijing/Shanghai specialty, but even then, they either are in the form of independent cooking blogs or social media (Weibo/Baidu) posts. While it exists, it's not at ALL notable even outside of the confusion of terms. Toyota Impreza (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, move to Bing wan Did some more searching and the dish does exist, but under a different name. There are enough Chinese sources to meet WP:GNG, but the article should be moved to the actual name.

• "老北京时令小吃冰碗冰盘曾价值不菲-中新网". Beijing Daily. Retrieved 2021-09-28.
• "炎威暑气蒸 水晶冰碗儿(图)_新浪旅游_新浪网". Sina Corporation. Retrieved 2021-09-28.

Jumpytoo Talk 02:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, move to Bing wan per Jumpytoo.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, move to Bing wan per above. VocalIndia (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Bing wan per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Jumpytoo. Bing wan passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, move to Bing wan per Jumpytoo. Meets WP:V and WP:GNG now. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.