Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wodzionka

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The result was Withdrawn (non admin close). Dusti^{talk to me} 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wodzionka

Wodzionka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

wikipedia is not a dictionary. Only contributor states they will not be able to contribute to expanding article beyond a simple definition for sometime therefore tagging as inuse or underconstruction is not appropriate Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- contributor states that he'll be able to come back to it in about a month. If nobody expands it, prod it then.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep There is no deadline. Dictionary definition is appropriate for a stub article if it is indeed a notable dish. So long as information exists to make a better article, that is sufficient reason to keep the article around. That being said, I'm having some trouble finding reliable information about the dish (under either Wodzionka or brołtzupa) via a cursory Google search. -Verdatum (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Behaviour by User:Jasynnash2 is parody. LUCPOL (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was trying to help the author. I had the feeling that someone was going to nominate the article for a speedy delete or would redirect it. I therefore commented on the talk page hoping to be of use. Conversation about "deadlines" are on the talk page and included in the tags I mentioned to the articles creator. I brought the "article" here out of good faith so that the merits and policies could be addressed. I had already done searches to try and ascertain notability, etc and found nothing. LUCPOL, please explain to me what you mean by parody? On my talkpage may be the more appropriate place for that by the way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN? Not sure how to do this but, I'd like to withdraw the nom. I finally made it to page 10 of google and found a couple of things I'm in the middle of "pirating" without copyvio in order to help get the article out of definition only stage. I'd still like an explanation for the "parody" comment though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 8 April 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.