Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Litter Cake (2nd nomination)


 * 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   scooped. Can be made to a redirect if the cookbook proves notable enough for its own page. Recipe links don't establish notability, just how to make it. The Bushranger One ping only 01:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Kitty Litter Cake
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

nominated this as an RfD with the following rationale:

''This page does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for significance. It also lacks evidence showing actual notability of the subject''

&mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 19:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Most of the references I can find are all in relation to The Kitchen Sink Cookbook. If someone wishes to create an article for this cookbook, which seems to be notable, then we could redirect this article to the book it appeared in. Pburka (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have recipes available here, here, here and here, along with pretty disgusting images when searched using Google. Are these good enough for a keep? Ratibgreat (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge – to The Kitchen Sink Cookbook. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2011 (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) 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only problem with merging to the KSC is that the cookbook by itself isn't really all that notable either. It's no longer in print and I can't find anything about the cookbook that isn't linked to a website trying to sell a used copy. There does seem to have been a PW review at one point, but one review doesn't meet notability guidelines for a cookbook. As far as the dessert itself, it is somewhat popular but not really notable in and of itself to warrant a wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * 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.