Talk:Clementine cake

Article sourcing
@The Banner The sources that I've removed are not appropriate for food articles. Sources like [1 ], [4 ], [5 ], and [6 ] do not speak at all about the notability of this dessert and should be removed. I would've nominated this dessert for deletion, but the fact that it's currently a good article suggests to me that it should be kept in some fashion, which is why I began cleaning it by removing the inappropriate sources. BaduFerreira (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For your information: sources are also used to back up information in the article. They can be used for that even without contributing to the notability. The Banner  talk 15:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is also a so called "Good Article". what makes that it is extensively viewed and reviewed. Including if sources back up the facts and are appropriate. The Banner  talk 15:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valereee Are you able to find any sources that back up this cake's notability? You seem to have better luck with finding sources for niche cakes than I do. BaduFerreira (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * BF, so apologies in advance, this is going to be a little long. Food is difficult.
 * Simple recipes can't be used to show notability, but that doesn't mean those from RS can't be used at all. This is true for all articles: not every source has to support notability. We only need three of those, at most. Other non-SIGCOV RS can be used to fill in the gaps. Even self-sources and in some cases primary sources can be used for that. Such sources shouldn't be removed unless they're not reliable, not supporting the content they are being used to support, or in the case of controversial information, not independent.
 * Even apparent recipes can be difficult; many sites (NPR, NYT, Serious Eats, Tasting Table, and a ton of cookbooks) will give lengthy discussion of the dish, but from a first glance it looks like the source is a recipe. Any RS that is discussing the dish at length can be used to support a claim of notability.
 * In many cultures there isn't professional food journalism or food academe. The fact a dish hasn't been covered heavily isn't necessarily an indication the dish isn't notable. Even a short description that describes the dish as a national dish, a traditional dish, a regional specialty, or one often associated with or served at certain celebrations is a plausible claim to notability.
 * A complicating factor to the above is that many dishes have different names in different cuisines, and many of those cuisines will render the dish in a different alphabet; all of this makes searching difficult.
 * When you see a source being used multiple times, it can be an indication that source is giving lengthy discussion. Not always true, but it's not a bad rule of thumb.
 * If you google the dish and see dozens or hundreds of recipes, it's an indication the dish may be notable. Again not always true but not a bad rule of thumb when you're first scanning the refs.
 * What makes you think the cake isn't notable? Valereee (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Difficult indeed... I've been focusing on food recently when I was brought here through some work I did on Brazilian foods and I haven't been able to find my way out :) That being said, I don't think this cake is notable because there isn't a single source in this article that speaks about it at length. Please double check that assertion because my goal here isn't to nuke random articles, but really to just remove non-notable dishes that have survived until now. The only source that may prove this cake's notability is the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food one and I unfortunately can't access it.
 * The bulk of this article comes from recipes which is fine if we've proved the notability but again this article doesn't utilize any sources that contain WP:SIGCOV of this cake. The entirety of this cake's supposed notability comes from the statement in the article that it's "probably related" (direct quote) to an ancient Jewish cake and that it appeared in a 2013 movie. I think the only path forward here for notability is proving that this cake is notable in American cuisine or rewriting this article to instead talk about the Shepardic orange cake that it's supposedly a variation of.
 * On another note, I hope all the editing on our food articles that I've been doing hasn't been misconstrued as malicious or (overly) destructive. It seems like a lot of our food articles aren't in the best of shape so I may admittedly make some false judgement in my quest to improve the overall quality of things. BaduFerreira (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's the modern version of an ancient cake, I would assume it's notable right from the start. It's not absolute proof, but it's a very, very strong indicator. I'm not really up for checking 20 sources, some of which I don't have access to, unless it gets nom'd for deletion. It's quite possible this cake is a sort of cusp topic, but ancient cake + Walter Mitty + Nigella Lawson + many online recipes...personally I'd let it go.
 * No, you don't appear malicious. :) Maybe a bit overenthusiastic about deletion, but many editors lean that way. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll nominate it for deletion then so that we can get more thoughts on if this passes WP:GNG. BaduFerreira (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Now you do kind of sound malicious. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)