Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove (nature)

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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grove (nature)

Delete Content already covered in grove. Uly 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's because grove is a disambiguation and this article has not yet grown beyond a stub and so contains only as much as the disambiguation contains. We only delete (proper) stubs if there is no possibility for their expansion. Are you asserting that there is no way for this stub to expand? Uncle G 03:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, result of disambiguation. - CorbinSimpson 03:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Kappa 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, ha ha ha. Very witty. Keep anyway. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Almost seems like a bad faith or misunderstood nomination to me. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A good example of why you should check links before claiming that the content is already covered. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 10:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I have added some further text and there is substantial scope for expansion by arboriculturists. -- Simon Cursitor 11:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• I understand that a stub should be allowed to expand, but I nominated it for deletion because the article had been created for more than an year and absolutely no addition had been made, and no talks of expanding it either. The link to the disambiguation page only loop back to the same pages. Well, it seems that this move for deletion has gotten some people to notice the page and new content had been added. That was not my intention but it's all the better. Uly 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nearly every stub, including this one, has the potential for expansion, and inactivity doesn't mean it should be deleted. — TheKMan^talk 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per expansion potential Dustimagic 20:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Preaky 06:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transfer to Wiktionary. Most of the detail claimed in the article is untrue; what is left can't be turned into a useful article - MPF 10:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Viriditas 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Kingturtle 08:59, 11 January 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.