Talk:Ground provisions

message: I am not sure I can endorse the deletion of this article as nonsense. The text is parsable and comprehensible. Despite this, the article should be deleted on other grounds. It doesn't contain much information and it is essentially just a definition of the term. I would have used db-blank on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I dont mind it going up for AFD, and I can see how it falls under the category of dicdef, but wow people, its been only minutes since I have created it. Russeasby (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Russ, I think AFD is a better route for the article; it's been contested by 2 people now. There's an edit war starting so I'm not going to revert again, but I urge you all to consider AFD as a better option. Keilanatalk(recall) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article should be CSD it has almost no information Jdchamp31 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, if it meets the criteria, that'll be the outcome of an AFD. Keilanatalk(recall) 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be left contested but the CSD should not be removed let the board review it. Jdchamp31 (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I dont mind an AFD, I beleive in the process.  But I am not going to put my own article which I am working on up for AFD.  And Jdchamp31 seems intent on speedy even after an admin removed the speedy tag and proposed AFD. Russeasby (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on AFD restored AFD tag Jdchamp31 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Okay, you all sort out what you want to do with this article.  Yes its a stub, no I havnt had time to do much with it, no I am not going to expand if its going to get speedied anyways.  You all sort out if you want to speedy it or (more appropriately) AFD it.  Note that 8 articles link to it, the use of the term is common enough in WP articles and unknown enough by non Caribbean readers that it likely is a justified article.  The food is a staple in West Indian culture and I hate to use other stuff exists, but yes, many articles on staple foods exist on WP (as well as local terminology articles). Russeasby (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think it'll be kept, precedent allows for it. Keilanatalk(recall) 16:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going to sit back and watch 

message: Since I am the user that initiated the CSD and the AfD I have removed both tags due to sufficient evidence that the article has importance on Wikipedia. Anyone that has any comment on this revision can seek me on my talk page. Jdchamp31 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not remove the AfD tag until the AfD discussion itself is closed. The discussion will continue regardless of the tag's presence. Imagine an editor's disappointment if he improves the article only to see it deleted per a discussion, the existence of which he was unaware of. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed CSD and AfD 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Found some really promising looking journal articles, but they're paywalled. Subsistence on the plantation periphery: Crops, cooking, and labour among eighteenth‐century Suriname maroons and Provision ground and plantation labour in four windward islands: Competition for resources during slavery. Leaving here if anyone wants to mine info. Cheers! Estheim (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Sources for Editors with Journal Access