Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cake club


 * 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 of the debate was delete. –  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cake club
Contested PROD. Non-notable unofficial grad student club created last year; likely vanity bait; hardly encyclopedic. Delete. Kinu t /c  19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Alan Au 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 23:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kinu.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Contested charges:
 * Non-notable - forthcoming thesis citations for contribution to the production of original research; external 'spin-off' cake clubs currently nascent
 * vanity bait - no biographies of members created as sign of good faith
 * encyclopedic - wikipedia benefits from a broad, rounded and exhaustive view of the world. Wikipedia would be the premier source of reference for readers of the above mentioned citations (Britannica rejected a similar article)
 * The article is neutral, verifiable and original as stipulated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion -- Gazurtoids 11:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for the response.  However, I should point out that Wikipedia is not in the habit of posting original research of any sort.  While the publications may eventually be individually notable, we are discussing the notability of Cake club and not those later publications.  Spin-off cake clubs might eventually be notable as well, but the article can be recreated if the phenomenon gains widespread traction or significant press coverage.  The "vanity bait" comment may have been a bit snarky, but it's true that many names have been included as red links.  This is typically viewed as an invitation to create articles about the subjects.  Finally, while your article is neutral in tone, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. --Alan Au 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.