Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garlic chutney


 * 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 keep. Petros471 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Garlic chutney
Uncyclopedic perma-stub. Not really needed, and not much has happened since it opened for business in 2004. Mysekurity  [m!] 03:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Expand, don't delete. So what if it's always been a stub?  It still has useful info. digital_m e (TalkˑContribs) 03:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -as above. Artw 03:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Not to pick on Mysekurity (no offense intended), but I think that the tendency to go searching for deletion candidates, the tendency to captiously scour articles for notability shortcomings needs to stop. How is an article on Garlic Chutney hurting Wikipedia?  Is it pushing the Garlic Chutney agenda?  We need to focus on the articles that really need to be deleted.  And again, Mysekurity, I apologize, since I am unfairly using your nomination as an example of a much larger trend. Adambiswanger1 03:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment yes, I'd like to see this article have less of an obviously slanted Garlic Chutney POV... I'm kidding of course .--Isotope23 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article could be really useful if someone wrote up a recipe in the Wikibooks or something and then linked to it from the article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom, could be useful for those looking for Indian and Pakistani fare. And an article's stubbiness has never been a good factor is assessing deletability. Kimchi.sg 11:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A fail to see why this deserves an article any less than chutney itself does. Many reasons given in the nomination are not valid eg: lack of edits and permastubbness Ydam 12:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is so notable about garlic chutney that it deserves its own article, rather than a subsection in the main chutney article? Does it have particular cultural significance? Does it vary much depending on where it comes from? Is it actually quite different from all the other chutneys? If so, then the article should be expanded to explain this, and if not then I would suggest it should be merged, just like anything that makes a stub on its own but fleshes out another article if used as a subsection. Confusing Manifestation 14:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. Apparently the Chutney article has sub-articles for specific kinds of chutney.  Personally, I'd like to see all of these boldly merged back into the main article as it isn't all that long... but until that is done the information should still be kept.--Isotope23 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Garlic Chutney does appear to be the only sub-article. What appear to be sub articles for mango chutney, lime chutney etc... are actualy links to lime, mango etc... Artw 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, interesting... to be honest I didn't click on the links. It still doesn't change my opinion, but personally, I think it would be preferable to merge this back into Chutney.--Isotope23 13:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Needing to be expanded is no cause for deletion. jgp 07:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef. Tychocat 10:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Chutney article. I don't think it merits a stand-alone article as there isn't enough info or separate notability. But the article has good info, is more than just a recipe, and also provides encyclopedic info on geographic variation. All good things. Plus, it fits into the Countering Systemic Bias project. WP:CSB.  Inter  lingua  talk 02:15, 14 June 2006 (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.