Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frozen noodles


 * 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 was keep. John254 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Frozen noodles

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Frozen noodles are n oodles that are frozen. All we need now is sources for this blindingly obvious fact and we'd have a valid directory entry. Pity Wikipedia isn't a directory or collection of random information, really. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete:It's a WP:COATRACK for the link to T & T Supermarket. Kww (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Delete I think "frozen food" covers this one. -- Auto (talk / contribs) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Fixed during discussion.Kww (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Qualified keep if sourcing can be found by the end of this AfD and a rewrite is actually done. I'm going to take a look now. Strikes me to be a not unworthy subject, little different than many other food articles, but of course the masquerading-as-advertising aspect of the present article has to go.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see the new version of the article I just posted. There are a ton of other sources that could be used. I couldn't access it without subscription but check this out. I'm sometimes amazed when searching for sources the things found one would never imagine existed; a scholarly journal devoted to food texture!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Kind of silly, but still relevant!!  Dwilso  15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep:It is a little too obvious that "frozen noodles" are noodles that are frozen, but the rest of the information is relevant, although short and needs re-organization. —— The Unknown Hitchhiker  O  15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and suggest speedy keep or reconsideration of the nomination? The article seems to have been completely rewritten by Fuhghettaboutit, and as such no longer described by the nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A fine article. Bravo Fuhghettaboutit! Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. Good sources show it's a subject of engineering and scholarship. Good job there. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination suggested that this was nothing more than a dictionary definition of something "blindingly obvious"; when in fact, this is a rather detailed article about an entire industry. I'm sure that fried chicken and canned soup and creamed corn seem blindingly obvious too.  Mandsford (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - obvious but notable. Think outside the box 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination is just plain silly.  Boiled eggs are eggs that are boiled, are we going to nominate that too? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's often hard to tell what can be turned into an article and what can't. I wasn't sure before I went looking that there was going to be anything to write about, and I am very much in the camp of fix it before the Afd ends or get rid of it. We give way too much leeway to unverified but verifiable. In my opinion this issue has and continues to do great damage to the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - frozen noodle is gaining huge popularity all over the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Plenty of references, ample encyclopedic value, et cetera.  (jarbarf) (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's obvious what it is, but we don't omit the cat article just because people know what cats are. This article needs some work, but there's the potential for a very useful and notable article.Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2008 (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.