Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,259,782 edits
Line 7: Line 7:
== Food and drink ==
== Food and drink ==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spice_rack}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiolbassa_Sausage}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiolbassa_Sausage}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Station_(Florida)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Station_(Florida)}}

Revision as of 16:53, 22 April 2024

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Food and drink. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Food and drink|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Food and drink.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Food and drink

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. ✗plicit 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spice rack

Spice rack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Spice ranks are useful, in fact we have one. However, that does not make them something which is notable enough to have a page. The first two sources are definition, the third (of three) is a blog that (rightly) suggests that they help to organize a kitchen. I agree, but no need for a page on that here IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 22 April 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiolbassa Sausage

Kiolbassa Sausage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. One source was added in response to my PROD, but both it's reliablilty and the independence of its content are dubious. Previously deleted and salted as Kiolbassa * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm landing on a weak Keep. I've added a bit, checked the refs, searched for more; there's a biz journals article that looks like it might be sigcov that I can't get to, added that into a Further reading section in case someone else can. It's got two instance of coverage by Forbes former staff, which is a bit hard to assess, and obviously it would be better if it were two different non-local sources. Lots of local coverage, and coverage in an industry mag. I guess what puts me kind of over the top toward keep is the fact it's been in business independently for 75 years, which for a food business of this type is practically a claim to notability all by itself. Valereee (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee the San Antonio Business Journal article is sub-titled "Kiolbassa CEO talks growth opportunities, company culture and legacy" and is largely what they say about themselves. S0091 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw that subtitle, but headlines can be so misleading, thanks for clarifying. It's a cusp article, I'd say. 1949 and still a family business, and of this size...that's unusual. I dunno. I will, however, definitely be having my husband look for it next time he's at the grocery. :D Valereee (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to get this discussion that seems to have fallen off the radar entirely back on the radar.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pppery (alt) (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Station (Florida)

The Station (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot locate any in-depth, significant coverage to demonstrate that this nightclub passes WP:GNG. Some passing mentions, but that's all I can locate. -- Mike 🗩 19:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it's a good article. Evangp (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Evangp (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin Richard3120 is a person that wants to delete this article. Evangp (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) It's necessary to mark who created the article in these discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any policy-based arguments for keeping? 'It's a good article' is a textbook example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LIKE). -- Mike 🗩 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, that is plenty sufficient as a basis to keep this article. Evangp (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it's a good article. Evangp (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Duplicate vote stricken. -- Mike 🗩 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. The only thing that can be verfied is that this was a venue in Fern Park, Florida – everything else is original research by the article creator. Setlist.fm fails WP:USERG and is not a reliable source, and for some reason a picture of a T-shirt with the venue's logo is considered evidence of notability. That leaves two very brief passing mentions in the local newspaper, which tell you nothing about the venue. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly not notable. And not a good article either.TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beatbox Kitchen

Beatbox Kitchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. See table below. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios Yes Lengthy discussion of Rashid before interview begins Yes No coverage is of Rashid, not the restaurant ✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/beatbox-kitchen-opens-brunswick ? Unclear whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content ? Unclear Yes ? Unknown
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/food-trucks-ready-to-burn-rubber-to-your-nearest-park-20200925-p55zcj.html Yes Yes No Bare mention of the restaurant, article is about COVID ✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/food-truck-fitzroy-beatbox-kitchen-opens-second-shop ? Unsure whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content ? Unclear Yes ? Unknown
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/beatbox-kitchens-raph-rashid-makes-the-ultimate-aussie-burger/news-story/554135474e0b453ae601670b470d46c9 ? Tabloid ~ No Bare mention of the restaurant ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Question Hey, GMH Melbourne, I'm not as familiar with AUS sources as you probably are, but to me those don't all look like simple straight interviews. Many sources will speak to a representative when covering any sort of business, and quoting those representatives doesn't turn a story into an interview. I feel like multiple of them are actually talking about the business in their own voices more than they're quoting the representatives. Can you elaborate on why you feel each of these doesn't represent independent coverage? Are these sources known for sponsored content?
For me the Vice piece probably fails to support notability of the restaurant more because its four long paragraphs before the interview portion are about the proprietor rather than about the restaurant. I would actually tend to accept that source as support for notability for the proprietor. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the table, the other sources are not just interviews, but also promo pieces or very promotional. A promo piece definitely would not count as a RS. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I understand what you mean. If we take what you have said into account, I'd say that The Age article could count towards GNG. Broadsheet is a food/travel magazine it would be hard to say whether or not they are totally independent of the subject. The Herald Sun article is a total promo piece with a burger created exclusively for heraldsun.com.au which leads me to doubt the independence of the broadsheet articles. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh...I don't see promotionalism of the restaurant in that piece. That's more the herald promoting itself, which all newspapers do to some extent -- a story 'exclusive to the NYT' is not the NYT promoting the subject of their story but the NYT promoting themselves. So a burger created exclusively for the herald is really just the herald saying, "Aren't you glad you're reading the herald, because otherwise you wouldn't get this recipe!" But that said, again the piece is primarily about Rashid and Chang, not about Beatbox. So again I'd say not sigcov of this article subject.
The Broadsheet articles are about the restaurant. I generally like to see different sources, but these are at least written by different people at the Broadsheet. But that's still local coverage. The Age is probably not significant coverage, it's a bare mention of BeatBox in a story about food trucks during COVID. And the Vice is not about the restaurant.
I think on balance I'm landing on Delete. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While current sentiment is leaning towards delete, giving this another seven days to assess if further input continues to lean that way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this Vice article which is no doubt independent, sigcov, and has depth:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios
This coverage of it shutting down which nevertheless is a secondary source that provides critical commentary of its life:
https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/beatbox-kitchens-brunswick-burger-shop-is-closing-down-20210715-h1x5me.html
This, combined with the dubious but in my opinion passable Broadsheet coverage meets WP:THREE and WP:GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the vice article is total independent, the vast majority of it is an interview with the owner, and even then I would say that it is based more on the owner rather than Beatbox Kitchen itself. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Vice piece is already in the article, and as GMH says, it's not about the subject. It's about the owner. Valereee (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but consider a new BLP article on Raph Rashid, for which the Vice article would be one principle source (two more would be necessary). The Vice article is in the source assessment table, which makes the point that the article is about Rashid and not about Beatbox Kitchen. We don't seem to have a BLP article on Raph Rashid, but that might be what is notable, not the burger truck. The article on the closing down must be approached with more caution. It is a discursive primary source inasmuch as it is reporting the closure. Discursive because it provides some background. The background is relevant, the occasion for the source is not, being primary. See WP:SIRS. Nothing here meets WP:CORPDEPTH and this fails WP:NCORP, but again, we have one good source for a BLP. If the BLP existed, redirect would be reasonable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the chain fails sigcov but the owner could have an article on themselve. X (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2024 (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.
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; borderline WP:SNOW. BD2412 T 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wegmans locations

List of Wegmans locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flatly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't see a standing precedence for such lists. There is no reason to believe this is a suitable merge candidate. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2024 (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.
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 merge‎ to Cup. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beaker (drinkware)

Beaker (drinkware) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No refs on the page for many years and appears to be a WP:DICDEF with little way to expand or cite properly. There are related ideas such as Beaker (laboratory equipment) and Bell Beaker culture but I'm not seeing the RS for this term. JMWt (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. While no commenter supports deletion (which even the nominator does not explicitly ask for), views are split between keep and redirect. This has been relisted more than enough times already. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot cake

Beetroot cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge to Beetroot, where several recipes are mentioned; agree with nom it's not really notable in itself. This one can be added at Beetroot as it's reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there seems to be enough sources available, particularly if the scope is broadened slightly to include the use of beetroot as a supplement to other baked products (for reasons of extending the shelf-life, for example). Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the relevant page. The article doesn't sit well alone, so redirecting is probably best. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought all of our "cake articles" (and "salad articles") had already passed through AFD but here is another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I stumbled across two sources today that discuss this cake as a style of chocolate cake, and it made me remember there are multiple terms in English, depending on what variety of Englis -- beetroot vs. beet, for instance -- which complicates things when searching for information. And there may be some history around Red velvet cake. I'm waffling a bit, but right now I'm thinking rather than redirect to beetroot (or to chocolate cake), we can keep. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Patkar (social activist)

Tara Patkar (social activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Patkar * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as an article on this subject has already been considered at a previous AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt promotional article on a non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2024 (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.
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 merge‎ to La Plaine St. André. ✗plicit 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takamaka Rum

Takamaka Rum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The focal point of significance lies in "La Plaine St. André," a 400-year-old historical plantation where this rum company operates a distillery and a store. It seems rather awkward that instead of the plantation having its own dedicated page, the brand is represented solely. Moreover, the page lacks reliable sources and is being developed by a banned editor exclusively focused on promoting this rum brand. Charlie (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created a Wikipedia page for La Plaine St. André. I am open for merge and include any non-promotional content from Takamaka Rum on the La Plaine page. Charlie (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources. Many are interviews with the founders/"rum maker", blog-based reviews or press releases, so don't count towards notability. These may be Ok though: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Fair coverage, but would like to hear other views before making a decision. Rupples (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could merge a portion to the plantation article as discussed. This appears largely PROMO. Mentioned in plenty of travel guides in Gbooks, but the are all only a few lines only. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hot milk cake

AfDs for this article:
Hot milk cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although it may not be obvious from the article (which I've not looked at), this is a baking technique for sponge cakes, rather than an individual recipe. One of the earliest known recipes was published in 1911.[7] It became popular during the Great Depression and wartime rationing.[8] We have some information about how the cake works (the hot milk starts cooking the egg whites before the cake goes in the oven).[9] WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Classic baking technique. Already kept in an earlier AfD. The Banner talk 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 18 April 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. Clear consensus not to delete, but views remain evenly split between Keep and Merge, with strong arguments presented by both sides. A merge proposal on the target's Talk page may be a better venue to reach a conclusion. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fudge cake

Fudge cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable chocolate cake variant that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I have found some additional sources: [10], [11], [12]. I do realize that these are just blogs, but I think it's generally hard to find more reliable online sources when it comes to food recipes. Possibly someone with access to cookbooks could add such a reference, as cookbooks seem to be used a lot on food-related articles. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Fudge cake article is about a dessert called fudge cake, not its recipe. Recipes cannot be used as reliable sources because every food has a recipe for how to make it. We need several sources that speak about the significance of Fudge cake to prove its notability and I have not found any sources that suggest that Fudge cake is a notable cake. None of the sources that you've provided are reliable. BaduFerreira (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with chocolate cake. While it does seem to be a distinct kind of chocolate cake, it doesn't seem to have any particular ingredient or cooking/construction process that distinguishes it from a generic chocolate cake (like a red velvet cake) or cultural prominence (like a Black Forest cake). But given that it is a specific variety of chocolate cake, with a defined recipe and expected outcome, it should be explained to at least some degree. The Cheesecake article is, I think, a fairly good example of how variations of a food should be treated (assuming that the variations can be sourced and don't meet WP:GNG). Ships&Space (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with chocolate cake, which this is a variety of. Reywas92Talk 04:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge. I assume that this is only the ordinary chocolate fudge cake and not, e.g., Tunnel of Fudge cake (which is separately notable, and also impossible to make any longer due to the key ingredient being discontinued). The ordinary chocolate cakes (i.e., American-style layer cakes – not tortes, not flourless, etc.) can be distinguished into at least the categories of devil's food cake, fudge cake, and German chocolate cake (per "Chocolate" by Maricel Presilla in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America) and perhaps, although this assertion confuses me, buttermilk ("Cake" by Sally Parham in same; she brushes past but doesn't name Mahogany cake, which is the transitional point in the 1880s, just before brownies [1890s] and the true chocolate cake [maybe around 1900] [though some consider mahogany cake to be the first chocolate cake [13], and there is at least one recipe from early in the 19th century for a chocolate cake – though not for a modern one, as baking powder didn't exist then]). Devil's food cake is made with Dutch-process cocoa powder and baking soda (the combination of these two produces a reddish tinge), and German's uses pre-sweetened chocolate bars, so those two are easy to separate, but fudge cake and chocolate cake both have similar ingredients. This source says the difference between fudge cake and chocolate cake is in the texture (fudge cake is moister and denser), and then describes differences in mixing technique (chocolate uses the creaming method and fudge uses the stirring method). From the description, Texas sheet cake (which currently redirects to a mostly irrelevant page, and is probably notable) is a fudge cake. I think that the labels are not always used with great precision. For example, blackout cake was originally called a chocolate fudge cake, but this source says the cake layers are devil's food cake, and our article calls it a (plain) chocolate cake. The Wellesley Fudge Cake from the early 20th century is one of the early versions of fudge cake. Wherever the information ends up, the first box mix specifically marketed as chocolate fudge cake might have been in 1948 by Pillsbury ("Cake mix" by Laura Shapiro in The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets; note that Duff's put out a mix for Devil's food cake in the 1930s). Because the line is so porous, it might be better to merge fudge cake into chocolate cake, than to attempt drawing a firm line between them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well known type of cake, often served in restaurants. The Banner talk 15:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether the consensus is to Keep or Merge. Thi AFD can be closed at any time a closer sees a consensus, it doesn't need to remain open a full week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If the internet search results are any indicator, either white or black chocolate, the cake is extremely popular. Doing a Google searth, there are just recipe, after recipe, after recipe. Some of those come packaged as such, and some are individual reader recipes. — Maile (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but what is there to say about these recipes as a whole that couldn't be included in an improved Chocolate cake other than the mere fact that they exist??? I'm really astonished that an editor as experienced as you just wrote something as unencyclopedic as "A Google search on the white chocolate cake brings up numerous recipes." So what? Adding a link to "HoosierMomOf5"'s recipe (WP:UGC) that was "off the side of a cake mix box" does nothing to refute the nomination. Putting a chocolate–butter "fudge" layer on a white cake is very much not even a "variant" of a chocolate cake that itself has a fudgey consistency, even if people use the same word to describe them, and there's no basis to having a separate page for these to say nothing, apparently, except that "recipes using this particular word exist". Reywas92Talk 20:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have to admire that the second-most-recent edit before this nomination changed the intro from "A fudge cake is a chocolate cake containing fudge" to "A fudge cake is a chocolate cake, which, despite its name, does not contain fudge." What a junk article, vagueness about a name rather than useful content about anything specific. Reywas92Talk 21:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as much as I hate it, certain celebrities have made this notable. There are lots of news stories about a certain past president who loves it, and there are cookbook recipes, blogs, etc., about this. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into chocolate cake. Neither article has a lot to it, so it would all become stronger together. The need for a separate fudge cake article is not clear. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:07, 25 April 2024 (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.

Purge server cache

Proposed deletions

Templates for Discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Food_and_drink&oldid=1220244668"