Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corn soup


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Corn soup
Already transwiki-ed, no reasonable potential for encyclopedic expansion. brenneman (t) (c) 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do we really need to go through this technicality, or can we speedy this as A5 now? -R. fiend 05:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's not a particularly good article, but at least it's no longer a recipe (which really is all it was at nomination). Keep, there's more said about it than I thought there would be, though it still isn't all that much beyond "it's a soup made of corn." -R. fiend 06:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy. Definitely A5.   Ingoolemo   talk  07:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy as identical copy of material on another MediaWiki project. Wikipedia is NOT a cookbook. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (Speedy) Delete as above. NSLE  ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 08:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. It's ridiculous if the WP doesn't have an article on such a simple topic. De ryc  k C.  09:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless there is another deletion debate that I don't know about, this isn't an A5 candidate. That's for when the outcome of a debate is to tranwiki, this appears to have happened in the opposite order.  Just to be pedantic, sorry. -  brenneman (t) (c)  09:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not being pedantic at all, for any admin to speedy this would be grossly overlooking the rules. A5 states, "# Any article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (or Miscellany for deletion), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded".  So, if consensus here becomes transwiki then we can speedy this article.
 * Speedy Per nom. --Robby 15:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, more common in the Western world than things like dahl... and, it can stay a stub for now (the recipe stuff should be removed). gren グレン 17:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not a recipe book.  Take out the recipe and you have: corn soup is soup made of corn. Who'd have guessed?  And at that it would be a dicdef.  Unless there is special social or cultural significance to this, which would be encyclopaedic, I don't see how it has a place here. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Read my reply below, there is room for expansion. Falphin 02:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see any potential for expansion either. PJM 19:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, popular food for Native Americans of the Seneca nation. Kappa 00:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep whats this craziness? We have articles on all kinds of food and the article isn't a recipe. Why not vfd cherry coke? And it does have a chance of expansion(local varieties, variations, etc). Falphin 02:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * To go along with this line of questioning, I thought of the article on Shirley Temple cocktail when reading this debate. The article up for deletion has far more information on significance. The Shirley Temple gets by on noting that it was named after a child actress. Jacqui  ★ 05:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, other foods of similar importance have articles so I don't see why this one shouldn't. Take Pecan pie for example.(Survived a VFD). Falphin 22:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove recipe. The current precendent is to keep articles about food if they have encyclopedic content, such as that on cultural significance, which this one does. However, it is correct that wikipedia is not a recipe book. Jacqui  ★ 05:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove recipe. &mdash; Instantnood 09:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.