Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funing big 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Funing big cake

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I found no significant coverage for this cake. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - obscure food. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Searches of "Funing cake" and of the Chinese name, 阜宁大糕, do turn up a few slightly informative English-language hits in non-reliable sources (e.g. ) as well as quite a few images of the product and a ton of Google results in Chinese. Maybe a Chinese-reading editor can find something usable in there; otherwise, I'd have to concur with deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A ton of Chinese refs sounds like this could easily pas GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:IAR Passes WP:GNG (See my comment below). The cake has historical relevance. Better to WP:PRESERVE and improve the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Revised my !vote above, per sources in my comment below. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found by Arxiloxos. Clearly a food that is not so obscure if you have read any sources about Chinese foods. Steven Walling &bull; talk   23:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Another reliable source found that is comprised of significant coverage about the topic:
 * Along with this source below, also comprised of significant coverage of the topic from a reliable source, the topic is passing WP:GNG:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here I can just see some manky pics and for this a translation is necessary in order to evaluate it. These sources does not show, that article meets WP:N. Bearian might be right. -- Dewritech (talk)  10:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Try opening the links using Google Chrome, and then use the translator which pops up. Both articles are comprised of significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:49, 23 May 2012 (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.
 * Comment - Try opening the links using Google Chrome, and then use the translator which pops up. Both articles are comprised of significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:49, 23 May 2012 (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.