User talk:Vector180

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Arundhati bakshi 11:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gromlette
You said on the comment you added to the article that you were unsure of why it's being considered for deletion. By the way, comments should be added to the talk page of an article (the "discussion" tab at the top gets you there) rather than to the article itself. And please do not remove the "Article for deletion" tag. This could be classed as vandalism if repeated, especially now you've been told about it.

OK, why's it up for deletion? Several reasons.


 * 1) This is an encyclopædia, not a cookbook. The basic criterion is something like "would you expect to find it in Encyclopædia Britannica?" and I think you'll agree there aren't too many recipes in there! There are articles in Wikipedia on food, such as Spanish tortilla, which bears more than a slight resemblance to your Gromlette, however that one's been nominated to be taken out of Wikipedia as well. If you take something like Haggis, you'll see that it covers history, cultural aspects and so on. Not just a recipe. And no jokes:
 * 2) Your comments about things like "a too-small bowl" are funny (well, OK, I laughed; I've been there with the "too-small bowl") but out of place &mdash; again, "would you expect to find it in Encyclopædia Britannica?". Probably not. This isn't enough in itself to get an article nominated for deletion (the comments however would be deleted and the article reworded) but doesn't help in this case.
 * 3) It's what, in Wikipedia terms, is classed as "non-notable". And it's pretty much "non-verifiable". And it's "original research". To see what the cirteria are (and they are generally only guildelines), see WP:N. And while you're at it, take a quick look at WP:V to see what Wikipedia means by "verifiable", and see the definition of original research.

There is a Wikibook on cooking; see here, this does take recipes (in fact the tortilla recipe should be moved to there), however I doubt they take jokes about small bowls or cooking with ash. I've voted to transwiki your article to the Cookbook but I doubt a) that'll happen (it's not of general enough interest. Though it sounds very nice indeed it's just basically a Spanish tortilla made with leftovers) or b) that'll happen in its current form.

Hope that clarifies things a bit! Tonywalton | Talk 20:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)