Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaper cake


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Diaper cake

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep - article can easily be expanded beyond a dictionary definition and the concept is notable. Yes, this happened yet but the article is also only 7 days old and Wikipedia has no deadline.  A "diaper cake" is mention in 64 news stories, often as the primary subject of the article.  It is also covered in 27 books. (Both numbers contain a few false positives but also many good sources.) A regular Google search reveals that this is a popular concept.  Clearly this is a notable topic and the article can easily go beyond just a definition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please remember that search engines do not serve as a standalone test of notability. Noir (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible keep If some of the information in the news stories was added so that something of the history and significance of diaper cakes was explained the article would be more than just a definition of the expression and could be kept.Northwestgnome (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Google results make a convincing argument. Plenty of places call it this, so it does exist.   D r e a m Focus  21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, it exists. Yes, there are Google News hits, Google Book hits, and Google Scholar hits. But I've looked, and I can't find anything that covers "the history and significance"—every link I could find was simply a how-to. Add to that the log history showing that it's been deleted twice, and you can see it's just a spam magnet. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Note: The article is on my watchlist, so further spam won't be an issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - well said by Dori. - Josette (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dori. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I support Dori's conclusion, ninja edit: Consider moving to wiktionary? -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 20:07, 9 August 2009 (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.