Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground provisions

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 wasKeep JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ground provisions

Contested CSD, tagged as deletable for lack of context. Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It was tagged as Nonsense when I looked, which it wasn't, so I said so. Somebody changed it to Nocontext, which seems entirely correct to me. If the only reason we are having this AfD is my comment on the talk page then I withdraw it. I was only contesting the reason to delete not the deletion itself. Sorry for any confusion. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the edit war about? Are they allowed to take the AfD off once it has started without formally closing it? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People would come and edit the article, unaware that it is listed for deletion. Imagine their disappointment, a couple of days later, when they see that it is gone without their input. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to: Weak keep. The consensus seems to be that it is now a valid stub article and I am happy to go along with that. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge, it's not actually that bad a stub, really. However, it could be merged to Caribbean cuisine if no other consensus is reached. The term seems to be used extensively on Google in the context of Caribbean food: [1]. Lankiveil (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Either Merge with Caribbean cuisine or Keep as stub. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, if merged, a redirect is in order. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will abstain from voting either way. I came across the term a couple days ago and came to WP to look it up, it wasnt here, but the WP search did include several articles that used the term (with no explaination to what it is). I simply felt that was justifable alone for an article. So I googled and read a bit about it and created a stub which I honestly felt was useful to WP. I am no expert on the subject, so I am limited in what I can expand it to. I can add a few external links though. A merge to (and redirect) Caribbean cuisine does seem somewhat sensible as opposed to outright deletion. But reguardless, I do think it serves a useful purpose on WP (if you were reading one of the articles on WP that use the term, would you know what it ment?). I wont contest an AFD, I do beleive in the AFD process on WP and consensus. Russeasby (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep certainly encyclopedic, which is to cover all useful knowledge in one place, in this case WP Hmains (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge and redirect, either way is fine - looks like an encyclopedic topic but if it's not likely that it's ever going to be expanded from a stub you may as well choose the latter of my suggestions.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I had originally posted this article for CSD as nonsense. I was mistaken by putting that CSD on and changed it to No Context. After the CSD was contested someone removed the CSD and changed it to AfD. I then removed the AfD tag and stated that since I was the one that put the article up for discussion I concluded that putting it up for CSD was a mistake and it should be left as a stub. Please advise on my talk page. Jdchamp31 (talk) 11:02, 1 January 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.