Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indestructible ink


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indestructible ink

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is basically just a recipe. I prodded this on 5/24 with reason: "Archaic cookbook info. Back when this was put up for deletion in 2004, all the keep votes seem to boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, which I can only guess was an acceptable argument back then, but it isn't now. The article's content is virtually identical to what it was back then." The old VFD discussion is archived on the article's Talk page (and in fairness, there are some comments for keeping it that go beyond "I like it," but the rationale still seems weak enough that a re-discussion seems worthwhile). Prod was removed on 5/31 with comment that since this survived VFD previously, it shouldn't be deleted by prod. I stumbled upon this article on the list of articles that have had the Wikify tag since November 06. Propaniac 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a how-to guide if nothing else. The lack of strong support for keeping makes me say delete. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I removed the prod on procedural grounds, but I agree that this is a how-to guide and has no place on Wikipedia (it may perhaps be good for Wikisource though, I don't know their criteria). Fram 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per everything said above.  Goldenglove Contribs · Talk 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is sourced.  Perhaps it needs rewriting to be an article about indestructible ink and its history and uses, beyond just the material from its single source.  But it should be sent to cleanup, not deleted.   ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By that logic, shouldn't every recipe from any published cookbook have its own article? Propaniac 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say any recipe from such an old cookbook, with such a long history, probably should have an article about it (not just the recipe itself). I suspect sources for its history can be found in cleanup.  ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT #4. Deor 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete how-to guide Avalon 13:05, 4 June 2007 (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.