The result was delete. It's likely that mock chops exist but the consensus here is that they are not notable. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominating for deletion on behalf of proposed deletion nomination: "No substantial proof has been provided that this 'meat' related food item actually exists. The article appears to be based on rumour and myth. No sources have been provided that suggest this meal is of Scottish origin. Deletion is proposed as being a possible failed item under WP:GNG for not being adequately supported by sources, and per WP:IINFO for being a possible indiscriminate piece of information which if it were merely true,, or even verifiable, does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The icing on the cake here is that Mcruic's description of this purported subject is entirely at odds with the article at hand. So not only is xe showing nothing to demonstrate that either description is accurate, xe is supporting content that xe outright disagrees with. Of course, a source documenting the subject would settle the issue, but Mcruic hasn't found anything explaining in detail what this purported subject truly is (or even that it's the same thing in different places). Uncle G ( talk) 21:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It's likely that mock chops exist but the consensus here is that they are not notable. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominating for deletion on behalf of proposed deletion nomination: "No substantial proof has been provided that this 'meat' related food item actually exists. The article appears to be based on rumour and myth. No sources have been provided that suggest this meal is of Scottish origin. Deletion is proposed as being a possible failed item under WP:GNG for not being adequately supported by sources, and per WP:IINFO for being a possible indiscriminate piece of information which if it were merely true,, or even verifiable, does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 01:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The icing on the cake here is that Mcruic's description of this purported subject is entirely at odds with the article at hand. So not only is xe showing nothing to demonstrate that either description is accurate, xe is supporting content that xe outright disagrees with. Of course, a source documenting the subject would settle the issue, but Mcruic hasn't found anything explaining in detail what this purported subject truly is (or even that it's the same thing in different places). Uncle G ( talk) 21:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC) reply