Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singing hinny

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. And now I want to try some of these things. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singing hinny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Looks like a neologism or a newly-revived term as per WP:NEO, but perhaps I just haven't heard the phrase before. Even if the term isn't new the article may never progress beyond a dictionary definition. §everal⇒|Times 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Teacake#United_Kingdom. Since this is just a one sentence definition, I don't see why it can't be added into the UK section of that article. On a side note, it might be interesting to see an article that focused on the difference of teacakes per region in each country, if anyone is aware of how to go about doing this. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Added it (albeit a little clumsily) to the UK teacake section of teacake. There's absolutely no reason for this article to exist now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Please see WP:MAD which explains the legal technicalities which mean that, once you merge content from one article into another, you should retain the history of the former. Warden (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as stated but whoever thought it was a neologism needs to work on their Google skills, as Charles Dickens refers to them in Volume 1 of All the Year Round, published in 1859. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, that's why I said it could be a "newly-revived term." §everal⇒|Times 01:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is neither a neologism nor a tea cake. A tea cake is a bun made with yeast and baked in an oven. A singing hinny is made with baking powder and plenty of butter so that, when it is cooked on a griddle, it sizzles or sings - hence the name. It is a distinctive regional food and the article just needs improvement per our editing policy. We have numerous other articles about such things - Eccles cake, Chelsea bun, Sally Lunn, &c. while North Americans may prefer Angel food cake, Boston cream pie, Twinkie &c. De gustibus non est disputandum. Warden (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Pancake#United Kingdom and Ireland. The first four Google hits confirm Warden is correct that it isn't a teacake as it isn't baked; it's a pancake (aka griddle cake), but more similar to a North-American style pancake or a drop scone (scotch pancake) than the usual English pancake (which arguably would be better discussed with 'Crêpe', but that's another matter...). There are many recipe and name variants in the 'pancake' article already; this can be merged as another one. It certainly deserves a mention there. If it turns out there's much more to say about it, it can always be split off again. Qwfp (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pancakes are made with a batter while these are made with a dough. Anyway, I have rewritten the article to clarify such points. What's really needed now is a picture. Perhaps I shall try my hand at making one ... Warden (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{I'd call any deletion discussion resulting in cakes a success. §everal⇒|Times 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

• Keep at this point I'm sold on the point that they need an article of their own. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Neutral. I'd thought that they were just a different type of teacake, but there's enough here to change my mind. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Keep - A quick review of the sources shows that this is a valid term and a notable item. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:06, 26 October 2011 (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.