Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Food and drink

Kiolbassa Sausage

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Station (Florida)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Music, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beatbox Kitchen

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios	Interview		✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/beatbox-kitchen-opens-brunswick	Interview/ promotional piece		✘ No
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/food-trucks-ready-to-burn-rubber-to-your-nearest-park-20200925-p55zcj.html	Interview/ promotional piece		✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/food-truck-fitzroy-beatbox-kitchen-opens-second-shop	Interview/ promotional piece		✘ No
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/beatbox-kitchens-raph-rashid-makes-the-ultimate-aussie-burger/news-story/554135474e0b453ae601670b470d46c9	Interview + very promotional	~	✘ 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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

List of Wegmans locations

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, Maryland, New York, and Virginia. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note WP:NOTPRICE is the specific portion of the policy that indicates lists like this should be avoided. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? delete per WP:NOTPRICE. Mangoe (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTPRICE. (Although not knowing where the nearest Burger Bar is poses serious concerns.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is outside our remit as a general knowledge encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beaker (drinkware)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~to Beaker (archaeology)~~ which is also about drinkware except that it was dug up from the ground. Could use a line that the term has been used in modern contexts? Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cup. Beaker (archaeology) is not a good enough fit. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that's better. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot cake cookie

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

Non-notable cookie that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Should be merged into Carrot cake#UK and US if not deleted outright. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have bookmarked scores of cookies I'd like to try making. This one isn't in it, but it appears to be a prime example of something that's just an inspired recipe with many variations, not a notable dish that's cohesively described outside of a cookbook writer's introduction. This could be a sentence in Carrot cake. Reywas92^Talk 02:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carrot cake and redirect, at least for now. It's possible this one could get there -- oreo makes a version, subway and aldis have a version, I've added that content+refs. Gourmet did something in 2004, but on a quick search I'm not finding it, and it was not unlikely it was a simple recipe, but if anyone can figure out their archives, ping me to a link and I'll add. Commercial uptake is probably a promising sign for this cookie's notability, so it would be good to have that info at carrot cake for future consideration. Valereee (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Carrot cake, which presently has no mention other than a link in its See also section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, as a good compromise. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine cake

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

Despite being a good article, not a single source has WP:SIGCOV of this specific cake. The majority of sources are recipes which is fine if they're accompanied by significant coverage and discussion of the dish, but there isn't any. The only shred of notability that I'm seeing comes from being a minor plot in a 2013 film and supposedly being an adaption of an ancient Jewish cake. The sources for this second claim are a personal blog (which isn't a reliable source) and the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food which makes no mention of an orange cake that this article claims Clementine cake was adapted from. We need sources that speak about this cake's notability (not just more recipes) and if that doesn't exist, I believe a selective merge to Fruitcake#United States is the best option. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claims about the ancient cake appear to be from the New York Times? Valereee (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, I missed that. That source is a recipe on the New York Times cooking website and the entirety of discussion of this cake is as follows: "This dessert, loosely based on a Sephardic orange cake, uses whole clementines, peels and all, for a flavor rich in citrus. The cooking time may seem long, but much of it doesn’t require much attention from the baker. And the first step, reducing the fruit, may be done ahead of time." Nothing in terms of WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also missed that the recipe is connected to an article. The NYT does that with their food writing: they write an article, and then they put the recipe(s) from that article into separate article/s with the main article attached with a "Featured in" link. Valereee (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn't realize that at all. Looking at the broader article shows where that earlier blurb came from: "The star of the feast came last: the Clementine Cake (pictured above). Baked by Dawn Datso, a family friend and professional pastry chef, it didn’t come from the book. But the cultural mash-up involved in its creation made it seem supremely appropriate. Years ago, while living in Malaysia, Ms. Datso was browsing in a library and came across a cookbook with some random recipe for Sephardic orange cake. A big fan of clementines, she eventually adapted the cake to feature them". The only WP:SIGCOV that can be pulled from this source is a person adapted a recipe for Sephardic orange cake by adding clementines and made her friend a cake. The baker (Dawn Datso) is described as a professional pastry chef, but I can't find any information about her. This doesn't show that Clementine cake has any notability. BaduFerreira (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told twice before this on the talk that not every source used in an article has to represent significant coverage. Other RS can be used to support assertions. Valereee (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources currently used in this article show significant coverage? There isn't a single source used in this article that has significant coverage of Clementine cake as a notable cake. Three of the sources that you've added (The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, The SF Chronicle) looked good at first, but they're recipes for an Orange & Almond Cake. Also none of them are over WP:100WORDS. BaduFerreira (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Perelman source is quite lengthy. But even the sources you're objecting to for not having enough words -- that's an essay, btw, not policy -- are calling it famous and a classic. They're discussing its ancient roots and that it's a traditional Sephardic passover food. Significant coverage isn't just about wordcount. Sometimes it's about what they're saying and who's saying it. In this case, RS and experts from all over the world are saying it. Valereee (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added several more sources, although frankly I don't think this article needed it. The NYT has covered this cake multiple times. The Guardian has covered it. The San Francisco Chronicle. Claudia Roden has covered it. Nigella Lawson has covered it. Joyce Goldstein. It appears to be a cake that has ancient roots, which is always an indicator of notability. I didn't have to look very hard. Valereee (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination gives me a weird feeling. First sources get removed and when they are restored and expanded on, a nomination follows. The Banner talk 23:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot cake

(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]

Tara Patkar (social activist)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Journalism, Politics, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – Per WP:G4. Svartner (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had declined the G4 with comment remove G4, it was earlier deleted for promo, new version has updates on Roti Bank and new section on Demanding separate Bundelkhand state. Jay 💬 16:21, 19 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]

Priyagold

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

Not able to find reliable sources with significant coverage of Priyagold apart from the routine coverage, numerical facts and press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources and company revenue, this article is enough notable as per wikipedia guidelines^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss6644 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC) — Ss6644 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-ballabh-prasad-agarwal-who-quit-family-business-built-rs-3000-crore-firm-priyagold-which-is-challenging-3080038

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Despite the number of sources in the article, most simply regurgitate information provided by the company and/or execs and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU note I'll let the AfD play out, but note that this article was created by a WP:UPE sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takamaka Rum

(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]

Merge to La Plaine St. André. That makes more sense for the subject, , which doesn't seem to be notable. Valereee (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hot milk cake

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 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]

Fudge cake

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very distinctive kind of cake. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Eg, https://magazine.wellesley.edu/winter-2023/oh-fudge Hyperbolick (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - This source is for Wellesley Fudge Cake, whereas the article that I nominated is about Fudge cake. They appear to be two different desserts. Regardless, we need more than one reliable source to show a topic's notability BaduFerreira (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rejecting outright the proposition that “Wellesley Fudge Cake" is anything but some kind of fudge cake. Considering chocolate cake lists a dozen different kinds. There can be different kinds of a thing. Suppose it could be emerged into chocolate cake. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:04, 4 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. Reywas92^Talk 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". Reywas92^Talk 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. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge server cache

Proposed deletions

Templates for Discussion

[1] ttps://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-ballabh-prasad-agarwal-who-quit-family-business-built-rs-3000-crore-firm-priyagold-which-is-challenging-3080038