Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of Chocolate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Redirect to history of chocolate --Stephen 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Origin of Chocolate
This article is an abbreviated fork of history of chocolate. John254 21:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to history of chocolate. Victao lopes (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge are you kidding? WLU (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to history of chocolate, which basically says the same things in a better form Doc Strange (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:MergeVote to . CWii(Talk|Contribs) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to history of chocolate (he he, I don't care if the term doesn't make sense), --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy (as possible) redirect to history of chocolate. This article has neither much in way of current content nor the potential to contain something that cannot be put into the history of chocolate article instead. Eldar (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the origin of chocolate belongs in the history page. Certainly Chocolate is a subject that warrants coverage, and given the extensive possibilities, a history sub-page is reasonable. However, I do not see that there is a need for a further division of such, and given the limited content, I support deletion. HOWEVER, in the event of communicating with what seems to be a new user, I suggest communicating with them more directly about the issue instead of slapping a template at them next time. I don't see a need for a redirect, but I don't object to one either. Also, I would suggest some of the prior commenters to consider whether they might have made remarks that are a tad abrasive? The editor involved has about a half a dozen edits, none of which are vandalism, and some of the comments may come across as hostile. I don't think anybody wants to drive off any newbies, but being circumspect would help a lot. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about all the confusion, I am new user and I'm not exactly sure how to do things on Wikipedia, but for a project my professor wanted us to create a new entry in Wikipedia and see how it changes from when we first posted it to the end of the semester. I apologize if this is not how things are done, I am just trying to follow the directions of what my professor has told me.
Cfahland (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: That's too bad. It probably means there are more bad articles to come...=/ Victao lopes (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, deleting an article is also a sort of change, and this discussion a learning experience. I hope your professor would appreciate this outcome too, and maybe introduce "article audience analysis" to the course next time such a project is assigned. Eldar (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should also inform your professor that wikipedia is not a test subject for college classes. It should not be used for class projects. Maybe if the assignment was to add an article from the wanted list for something that was notable then we could have a different view. Getting articles written and correctly sourced would be a reasonable college assignment that might not cause problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 27 February 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.
