Talk:Cake in a mug

Old merge discussion
Deletion not supported, personally i think that this cake is notable enough. Small, squishy person (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More details please - although I don't think just a recipe is enough. It would have to be a really special cake (or a really special mug, or both). pablo hablo. 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm against the deletion. I took down the notability tag also, since major news sources could be found quite easily on Google.  Two seconds of Googling "cake in a mug" between quotation marks, showed 61,300 places mention it, so it does exist, and is surely note worthy.  Putting more information about it into the article would be more desirable, of course.  If you need additional media sources, just Google.   D r e a m Focus  01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did Google it, thanks. I just didn't think it was sufficiently notable, (certainly not "surely note worthy") after all it is a cake in a mug.
 * I wasn't completely sure that it merited deletion hence my using the "proposed deletion" process rather than the "speedy deletion" process.
 * Existence ≠ notability:- Googling "black shoes" produces over a million hits, so whereas they clearly exist, Google per se is not a guide to notability. pablo hablo. 10:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with deletion ... the only Google hits I see are recipes; nothing to establish notability. As you say, existence ≠ notability. As the prod was disputed, I suggest using WP:AFD so the community can discuss. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I'd say merge it with another page, perhaps sponge cake?-- Legeres (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is fine on its own. There is no way to place it. Its a separate cake entity, unlike any other cake out there, as it alone is made in a mug, instead of the normal places for it.  D r e a m Focus  13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge was suggested at the AfD discussion.
 * The article as it is is a brief description linked to some recipes.
 * The problem with merging is finding a suitable merge target. This is just another way of making a cake, so it could legitimately be incorporated in the main Cake article. However it will need a wider discussion; as you will see if you look at the page history any merge will be instantly reverted by Dream Focus. pablo hablo. 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any merge without proper consensus, will be reverted by myself, or any fair minded person about.  D r e a m Focus  14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Small correction, Legeres - it will either be reverted by Dream Focus or a fair-minded person. If you still think the article should be merged, you need to first have a discussion here. If that proves inconclusive, or if there is not much participation, it can then go to mergers for discussion, where it should reach a wider audience. pablo hablo. 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A section entitled "alternate ways to make it" was what I was picturing Dream Focus. I wouldn't dream of doing anything big without consensus.  I'd agree it needs more content though, I'll see if i can't find any more references for the article if I can. -- Legeres (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly could do with improving &mdash; have at it! pablo hablo. 19:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

food items notability rules
A recipe on how to make something, is all that is required for a food item. Look at all the food articles out there. They link to place that tell how to make them. There is nothing else you can expect to be said about them, less it was a restaurant review mentioning how nice something looked or tasted.  D r e a m Focus  17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As one of the major Food and Drink WikiProject members, I can say that is not the case. Just because there is a recipe does not make something notable. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of chocolate chip cookie recipes - yet we only have one article on the subject. We do not need an article on every variation of the cupcake. Every food item on the planet that is made (excluding fruit and other things eaten straight) has a recipe, so we follow the general WP notability guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

possible references

 * apparently microwaving isn't the only way to do it, this one uses the oven —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legeres (talk • contribs) 13:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is a cupcake alright! pablo hablo. 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a redirect and a section in the cupcake article would be fine. Call me crazy, but I think a separate article would be fine too. A cake in a bundt pan is a bundt cake. In a tall round or square pan it's a cake. In a muffin tin a cake is a cupcake. So I don't see why we can't have a cake made in a mug that's a mug cake or cup cake? They are certainly related to cupcakes, and there's the history of cupcakes being made in ramekins and what not, but a cake in a mug isn't really the same thing as a cupcake it seems to me. I think it's really it's own thing and more of a cousin. It also seems interesting, rather notable and, dare I say, kind of fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * nutrition facts on this one -- Legeres (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)