Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gromlette
- 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gromlette[edit]
Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Sandstein 19:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC) It is asking to be deleted, and it is a mess. It's just somebody wanting to have fun. But here, is not the place. Yanksox 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Transwiki to Cookbook, which is a cookbook. Granted, this looks like a "recipe" for a Spanish tortilla using the "what you have hanging about in the fridge fried up in beaten egg" method; but it sounds very nice to be honest, and per comments by the author (now moved to the article's talk page) people have actually tried it and liked it. I don't know what the Cookbook's inclusion criteria are but maybe there's an outside chance that this would make it, if only to thier BJAODN. Tonywalton | Talk 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Im aloud to enter text here? I apologise if im not. Really Im not trying to be a smarty. I have this time around managed to folow the links for discussion and fully understand where you are coming from re the !humour and the prefered dry aspect of the wikipedia. By all means do what you like with the article I have since copied the page and placed the text on the cited page so the ingredients/method is not lost for those who are interested. Anyone who visits my pages can see that there is a mix of technical, philosophical and humor surrounding a number of aspects of camping etc.I can see now this does not fit the wikipedia format. I was not trying to bring my page more hits. Most of my pages are indeed simply reminders to myself of what transpired. However in the past I have often wished for some of this info to have been found on the web rather than me having to reinvent the wheel so to speak and so have placed it in a public area for others. I use wikipedia alot and again apologise for any upset.mds 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nobody's "upset"; you've misinterpreted what Wikipedia is and is not, is all. Specifically Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Manybe your recipe belongs on your camp stories page (which has an annoying tendency to ask for a password but let you in anyway if you hit 'cancel', by the way). It doesn't belong here, as I've explained on your talk page. Tonywalton | Talk 12:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deathphoenix 17:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Speaking merely as an editor and not a vote closer, I don't think the Wikibooks cookbook is for new, non-notable recipes, but I could be wrong. --Deathphoenix 17:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is essentially original research. We shouldn't have a collection of everyone's made up recipes on Wikibooks Cookbook. Pepsidrinka 17:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why shouldn't "everyone's made up recipies" appear in Wiki Cookbook? I assume that is what all the recipies there technically are.Crypticfirefly 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and suggest it not be transwikied. The article was written on the same day the recipe was first improvised, and for all we know, it will never be prepared again. ×Meegs 12:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pepsidrinka. Stifle 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Also remove reference in the omelette article. Dr.frog 00:20, 6 March 2006 (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.