Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strawberry pie

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. Closing a little early as the nomination was withdrawn. Now, I'm hungry for dinner! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry pie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There's nothing in this article which doesn't just belong in pie. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to pie, as there is nothing here worth merging to pie. No prejudice against creation of a new article called Strawberry rhubarb pie from the existing redirect for that, as there appear to be more sources and history there which could be discussed.Cielquiparle (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or at least don't merge to pie which is far too general a place to put such a widely known dish. No mention of the use of gelatin there, which is pretty crucial in some versions of the prie for such a sloppy, moisture-full filling. It also puts distance between this and the link to strawberry-rhubarb pie. SpinningSpark 13:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pie#Sweet contains a list of links to specific pie recipes, not an actual list of pies with descriptions, which shows that it's not actually true that this is a good candidate for merging. A quick search of Google Books shows plenty of sources to use to verify and expand the current article. Steven Walling • talk 17:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone would kindly present some sources to add, I will happily add them to Strawberry pie. Otherwise this discussion is way too theoretical (e.g., not convinced that Pie#Sweet is a list of specific pie recipes; more like a hodgepodge of stubs and start articles about various types of pies, many of which are poorly sourced). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All you have to do is search "strawberry pie" in quotes for specific references to that recipe. There appear to be a ton of pie recipe books that include it. Steven Walling • talk 18:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not very helpful. Which ones are reliable sources? What are the important topics to cover, besides gelatin? Cielquiparle (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Idk, you'll need to do some reading if you do in fact want to edit the article. I just pointed out that there are clearly sources beyond what exists in the article that mention the topic in depth, which is how we determine notability. Steven Walling • talk 20:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. I've made three statements, removed one unsourced one, and added some sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice work! Thank you Steven Walling • talk 18:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's such a short stubby article for an article made so many years ago. If some more content can be added maybe it can be kept. Otherwise I'd say just delete it. Nice pictures though. BogLogs (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Expanded. Happy to keep this now. Still lots of room for expansion/improvement (and rather US-focused at the moment), but at least it's no longer a stub. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Excellent expansion. Is there a way for the proposer to ask for an early close? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, by stating "nomination withdrawn" on this page after their nomination, but effectively they have already done that by changing to keep. However, since one user has (half-heartedly) suggested deletion, we should probably let it run the full seven days. SpinningSpark 17:22, 22 November 2022 (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.