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 Delete. Maxim(talk) 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no useful content, and actully kind of spammy, as the article author is this guy. CitiCat ♫ 04:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carve it up Inane non-notable article. PurseyTalk | Contribs 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an example of an article which, while 100% true and (probably) verifiable, simply is not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and move to "Food art" or "Edible art" (neither of which currently exist). This is a subgenre of a much larger art form utilizing edible media. While the current article really does nothing to assert notability or provide insight, a very well-developed article could be created incorporating fruit and vegetable sculpture, candy sculpture and painting, cake decorating (which has its own article, but could be covered in brief in an overview of edible art), etc. There are whole books, television shows and competitions devoted to edible art, making for a large pool from which to draw reliable sources. Also, in regards to the !votes to delete citing that it is "a waste of space" or "unencyclopedic," keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper. LaMenta3 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LaMenta3's suggestion has very strong merit. I support that proposal. Keep, expand and move to Edible art. Corvus cornix 17:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LaMenta3. isaid 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um . . ., so what you saying is someone should write an article called "Edible art". What this is is two sentences about carving watermelons for hotels. The presence of one has nothing to do with the creation of the other. CitiCat ♫ 03:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that would be a totally seperate and unrelated article. We couldn't even use this one as a redirect title, as it's ungrammatical and a highly unlikely search term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're in the right discussion? This article is neither a list nor a gallery. LaMenta3 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ridiculous two-lines of nonsense by someone testing the waters to see what kind of nonsense will be tolerated. Let's let him/her know ASAP. Watchingthevitalsigns 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and digest this per nom. Then, later, post Edible art on WP:RA. Bearian 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.