Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bi pong moun

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 No consensus - there really is not a clear direction here as to the retention or deletion of this page. It has been relisted once, so i won't do it again; I think it will just bring about more confusion. For now, the page is defaulted to being kept. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bi pong moun

Claimed to be a typical Cambodian dish. But two dozen Google hits suggest that the original prod was valid. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Need to seek input from original contributor and our Cambodian Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about their cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've posted a request at WikiProject Cambodia for Khmer speakers to either find sources for this, or confirm that it isn't a notable Cambodian dish. – iride scent 19:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible that there's another romanization that is more common?Addendum could it be known under another name? If the answer to both question is negative, then my vote is for Delete as the dish fails to be verifiable.--Boffob (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are plenty of articles on Chinese and Vietnamese and other Asian food (I've seen them) and they're really short, unreferenced, and probably only bring up a few Google hits as well (I never checked, but I can imagine). Those are kept and linked to from larger articles, like the main cuisine ones. Maybe deleting this one would be a mistake. I believe it goes by another name, maybe several other names. It is strange that editors would have so much knowledge on what Google brings up in hits as two digits. As I'm not Cambodian, I'm not too sure. I agree with the above. Lady Galaxy 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a recipe and brief description in a Cambodian cookbook. Proves it is a real dish in use. I put a fact tag on the unverified information.Nrswanson (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2008 (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.