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 as per WP:N. Non-admin closure. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egg wash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete, this is not a recipe site Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, but I believe there is some sort of Wikimedia site that is? If so, and if they don't have an article on this already, then transwiki, otherwise delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here it is [1], and my search showed they do not currently have an article on this subject, which is odd because it is a fairly common technique... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having worked in a bakery, I can testify that an egg wash is a very important concept, and a valid topic in and of itself. It would be possible to write an extensive, tightly-sourced, highly encyclopedic article on this topic. The current article is a stub but it is certainly not bad or problematic; this is a classic example of a stub that could easily be expanded into a good article. Do a google books search for "Egg Wash" or "Egg Wash is". Google news and google scholar also turns up some relevant sources. Yes, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, but I think cookbooks can be used as valid sources per WP:RS, especially ones by famous chefs, and books that are themselves widely known. In fact, I'd say for culinary topics, cookbooks are often among the BEST sources. Also, there is other relevant material out there, including patents relating to an egg wash: [2], vegan substitutes for egg washes, etc. Cazort (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue isn't that cookbooks can't be used as sources, but rather that Wikipedia itself is not a cookbook, but does have a sister project that is and would welcome this sort of material. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not suggesting writing a recipe, I'm saying that an encyclopedic article can be written here. In order to justify deletion you need to argue that the topic is not notable in that there are not enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article. But there's a wealth of information out there and I am finding it with little effort. For example, this book: [3] discusses technological issues of applying egg washes in the commercial manufacture of cookies and crackers. Having an article on a culinary topic, even one that discusses how something is typically made, does not necessarily make a page unencyclopedic. Look at the pages (stubs) on Broth, Beurre noisette, or Beurre manié. Would you want to delete all these articles too? I would strongly advocate keeping ALL of them. They are important culinary topics! If you want to see an example of a more extensive article on a topic like this (an intermediate step in the production of some kind of food), look at the article on Roux. Cazort (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: sources are already being found, and even as someone with very little experience in baking, I've heard of this. Describing cooking techniques is very different from giving recipes—I find Hell in a Bucket's rationale for deletion (and its endorsement by Beeblebrox) to be mistaken. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As above we may not be a recipe site, but this is not a recipe. Just as we have an encyclopedic article on Batter (cooking), we can have one on egg wash, as an important component of many recipes. Cool3 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just edited the article a bit, in an effort to make it more encyclopedic. Cazort (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wash (cooking) so it can include milk washes and other types. The concept of a wash in cooking is certainly notable but we don't need separate articles for each type. Drawn Some (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a good idea. Having everything together on one page would certainly seem to make sense, especially since most cookbooks discuss alternatives in the same context. Cazort (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, and consider merging to Wash (cooking) when we have something written about the other washes. WP:NOTHOWTO is mainly concerned about the way information is presented; it doesn't explicitly prohibit any specific topics. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reasons stated above. While we may not be a recipe site, we do need articles about cooking. Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep- wikipedia is not a recipe book, but many foods and techniques are presented individually and in an encyclopedic way here, if they're notable and sources are available, as in this case. [4] [5] [6] Sticky Parkin 21:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not move. Notable article subject. If someone wants to write an article more broadly on various types of washes they are welcome to it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a general cooking technique, not a recipe. DGG (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator is correct in saying that Wikipedia is not a recipe site, but this article is not a recipe. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't a recipe and is clearly notable being a very common component of cooking/baking. -Djsasso (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't a recipe. The article is short and sweet, but the topic is notable and the nomination is flawed. Deletion nominations need better rationales than this. Fences&Windows 23:17, 15 June 2009 (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.