English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Course (meal)

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 keep. Closed early per snowball clause I have no doubt in my mind that this will be the result after seven days. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Course (meal)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD (WP:NOTDICT) removed by page creator. TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the nominator would care to put their nomination in English? The guide to deletion states, in part, "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." You didn't even bother to link the term "PROD". Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Although, not being a newbie myself I did understand it and I agree with the reasons given when the prod was declined, this could easily be expanded far beyond a mere definition, and there are already other articles on specific courses such as entree. It may be worth considering merging some of them together in a parent article on the concept of courses. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC),

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "the nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion", and so there's no case to answer. Warden (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The nominator advances the WP:NOTDICDEF argument for deletion, so a speedy keep shouldn't necessarily apply. A snowball close looks imminent, though. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Dropping a shortcut isn't advancing an argument, it's just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. And the page doesn't resemble a dictionary entry in any way so that's WP:SK, "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". Warden (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep Give it time to expand. They teach about courses in all the food classes in cooking schools and whatnot. Read a book on fine dinning, they talk about the courses, and what is proper. Dream Focus 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. You can find the concept of course discussed everywhere in books etc. It is quite surprising and embarrassing that we didn't have this before. --cyclopia^speak! 18:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Right? I was doing work on meal and related articles and wikilinked to course (meal)... redlink?? Went to course... nothing? Really? Glad to help, that may be the last real article I ever start, we've got just about everything else! Red Slash 03:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  - We actually have a lot of notable content still to cover. Look at lists of extinct animal and plants genera if you need suggestions for new articles to create! --cyclopia ^speak! 07:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep Beeblebrox explained things well, and I agree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - plenty of room for expansion as a logical encyclopedia article--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Snow keep per above. Unlike many DICDEFs, this one's expandable. Ansh6 6 6 01:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - I'm really trying to understand this nomination (but can't). Stalwart111 05:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep. We have plenty of related articles (Full course dinner, Dish (food), Entrée, Dessert etc). If someone can find the references, it is also worth noting that serving meals in courses is by far from universal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2013 (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.