Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lettuce 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under criteria A1. -- ( &#x263A; drini &#x266B; | &#x260E; ) 22:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Eleven food stubs
These were all recipes that have since been transwikied to the Cookbook at Wikibooks. At the moment they tell us absolutely nothing at all about the item in question except that it is what its name says it is: If anyone can expand any of these into at least a stub discussing the historical and/or cultural relevance of the food in question, I'll retract my nomination for that item. Otherwise, delete them all. Angr/undefined 07:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Lettuce soup is a soup.
 * Minestrone alla Casalinga is minestrone.
 * Tarragon sauce is a sauce.
 * Ham sauce is a sauce.
 * Genoese sauce is a sauce.
 * Neapolitan anchovy sauce is a sauce.
 * Neapolitan soup is a soup.
 * Mushroom sauce is a sauce.
 * Mirepoix sauce is a sauce.
 * Soup alla Maria Pia is a soup.
 * Soup alla Lombarda is a soup.
 * I'd say they'd all be Speedy candidates under A1. There certainly isn't enough here to merge. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  08:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, well I was tempted to speedy them, but I thought I'd let people have a chance at expanding them first. Most if not all of them certainly have potential for encyclopedic growth, but if some doesn't happen soon, they have to go. --Angr/undefined 08:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete all as A1. These aren't even stubs. android  79  12:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete all as A1. This is what I call "article-creation vanity." They provide no information that isn't in the title. Unlike some other food articles, these are not of any particular cultural significance, and if expanded would probably be no more than cookbook entries, which are not suitable for Wikipedia. If anyone thinks I'm wrong about that, then they should still be speedied but should then be entered as requested articles. That serves the "placeholder" function but keeps them out of the main namespace until someone has the time to write a decent paragraph about them. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete all, contentless. Sheesh, they could at least say, e.g., "Lettuce soup is a soup made with lettuce"; "Ham sauce is a sauce made with ham". -- BD2412 talk 13:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of content. Qaz  ( talk ) 14:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Comment: Remember, the history of these articles is that they used to be recipes, and only after transwikification to the cookbook have they become virtually empty. So complaints about vanity, etc. seem off the mark. I took a serious look at trying to expand Lettuce soup, but didn't have any luck - a lot of recipes for different styles of lettuce soup exist out there, but very little exists on the culture, history, or importance of it. Bunchofgrapes 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Delete all for now. (Unless any get exapanded in the meantime, in which case disregard this vote) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bunchofgrapes. A speedy seems inappropriate, due to the fact they started as more the one-liners.  A delete is appropriate, since we're not a cook book. --rob 17:09, 3 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.