Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cakes


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of cakes

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, this is a directory listing which provides no data that cannot otherwise be produced through category navigation. coccyx bloccyx (toccyx)  19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Make sure all entries are categorized and Delete. This offers nothing more than a category and is unlikely to do so in the future. - Mgm|(talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article seems to be discriminate in that it contains only cakes. The cake category includes many desserts that may or may not be cakes. So I think this encyclopedia is better with an article that lists just cakes. It probably needs to include an explanataion and some encyclopedic material about the terminology, criteria for inclusion and just what a cake is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With due respect, if the Category is inaccurate, that can be improved while still keeping it a category. The other things you mention -- explanations, terminology, etc. -- belong in the main article Cake.  Powers T 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Categories do this better.  Powers T 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A category is not the same as a list. The category contains Linzer torte, tiramisu, swiss roll etc. etc. This article is a list of cakes. It makes the encyclopedia better, it's notable, and it is discriminate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For those folks who describe every list as an "indiscriminate list", I will say that THIS is an indiscriminate list. Lists that aren't indiscriminate have more information so that one can distinguish (in other words, "discriminate") between the entries and have information that isn't obvious (such as that these are all articles about cakes).  Not a delete, because it would be fairly simple to tell the reader what the difference is between one confectionery and another.  Will it be fixed?  I don't know.  But could it be fixed?  Yeah, piece of cake.  Mandsford (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is about as pointless, generic and indiscriminate as a "List of appetizers". JBsupreme (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and deal with properly by expanding the information fro browsing purposes, which makes it more than what a category can do. A table by cusisine and possibly by type would do this nicely. If there's more to say than names alone, we usually should have a list as well as category. DGG (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list has a lot of potential. It could include information about the country of origin, ingredients, characteristics of the cake, which categories can't have. Eklipse (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has massive expansion potential for somebody so inclined. I'd like to a see a categorizationist correctly categorize a Jaffa Cake. MickMacNee (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's essentially a miniature filled sponge cake. What's the problem?  Powers T 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Eat it because then you cannot have it. There is nothing inherently notable about a list of cakes.  This is indiscriminate information.  While not a great fan of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a deletion rationale, if we have lists such as this, which are potentially so wide as to be unmaintainable, then we may as well have List of red haired dwarves who live in Clapham here too.  Even the crumbs fail notability.  Get rid of this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists derive notability from the subject of the list. If the subject of "cake" is notable (it is, unlike "red haired swarves who live in Clapham"), then the list is fine.  You're not going to find secondary sources for any of our "list of" articles.  They serve a navigational and organizational purpose.  Now, it's possible that this particular list is redundant to a category, but to delete it on notability reasons is misguided. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I look forward to seeing the citations for Red haired swarves who live in Clapham. Sounds like an interesting article and I hope it proves to be notable enough for inclusion.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He and his sister do not stay in one place long enough to allow us to be sure they exist. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand how you feel because I've seen many others who have felt that before. What they found when studying a list such as this in detail was that the list topic per se is rendered notable or not by the character of the list itself.  Were this rewritten as a meta-list, listing cakes by nationality, by with/without gluten, by unusual ingredients (for example), then the list would lose its deletability.  As it stands this list is a manual duplicate of a category and thus impossible to maintain.  I am not arguing that a list and a category are mutually exclusive, they overlap and serve different purposes.  I am arguing that this list as it stands today is redundant because a category does the job far better.  And I am arguing that this list is not inherently notable precisely because of its poor content and organisation.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the way you're using the term "notable" in this context. Notability has a specific definition on Wikipedia - see WP:N.  It has nothing to do with organization or how the content is laid out. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. A duplicate of Category:Cakes. This does nothing more than a category can. Tavix (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It has potential for expansion with addition of info/structure that you simply cannot do with a category. Read WP:CLN. The fact that it is currently a duplicate awaiting improvement is not a bad thing, and is certainly not a reason to delete it. In fact, if this list is deleted while a category remains, I will put it up for DRV on basic principle. MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like pre-meditated disruption to me. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or a threat! If it has potential, go right ahead and expand it to meet it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I, or anybody else, is free to expand any valid article at their leisure. It's easier to do that when the only things that get deleted on the pedia are proper candidates as mandated by the deletion policy. As regards the original nomination, if you actually read NOTDIRECTORY and WP:CLN, then it's quite clear this is not a deletion grounded in policy at all. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT #3 reads black and white to me. JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything black and white in WP:NOT #3 as it relates to this article's AfD. I do see a list of cakes and editors disagreeing over whether it's useful, encyclopedic and notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A database/directory requires at a minimum, 2 columns. If the list was accompanied by another arbitrary non categorising column such as sugar content, you could claim #3. As it is, I think Oracle's market share is safe, Yellow pages can sleep at night, and Jimbo Wales need not apply for membership to the confederation of cookbook publishers. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Another indiscriminate list. This is what categories are for. Themfromspace (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CLN and/or cite an accepted valid deletion reason per the deletion policy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to ALL of the Wikipedia main namespace, lists are not exempted. Categories are not in the main namespace.  Citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE at an AfD is a perfectly valid argument. Themfromspace (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please prove evidence that this list is indiscriminate, and/or explain why a category is worth retaining but a list is not, bearing in mind you obviously have a preference.MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. I wonder how you handle conversations in real life.  No one needs to answer a loaded question like this, ever.  JBsupreme (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Loaded or not, here's my rebuttal. From Wiktionary:  Indiscriminate: "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless."  A list of cakes is far too broad of a term for an article in an encyclopedia.  The subject has to be narrowed down further (distinctions have to be made).  I can't prove that anything is indiscriminate, that's a judgement call.  Just as it's a judgement call whether an article of borderline notability should stay or go.  In my opinion a list of cakes is clearly not discriminate enough to belong in an encyclopedia, as opposed to a (fictional) list of notable cakes from Baker X. This article's too broad even to ask questions about notability.  Is a list of cakes covered in reliable sources?  Yea... but not this list of cakes.  Just as a list of American citizens is a futile task but we can easily find articles talking about American citizens as a group.  About categories. Categories are broader than individual entities (for example, a Bavarian Chocolate Cake is a subset of 'cakes' in general. All the cakes in this list fit neatly into the category 'cakes'.  Wikipedia gains from the category (as it is a suitable category for articles) and unlike articles in the main namespace, notability and discrimination aren't issues. Themfromspace (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories and lists are not redundant. Why can't you accept this basic fact? The idea that you want a list of cakes to be compared to a list of people is just ridiculous. Stop clutching at straws and actually make an argument based on policy that is even relevant to this list. Notability? For crying out loud, could you misunderstand a policy any more? MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't respond to uncivil comments directed at myself. Themfromspace (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. This response is in my experience a handy get out clause for those who realise they have no clue how to extricate themselves from a bad argument, but still want to appear to have saved face/ MickMacNee (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment It is perfectly OK for lists and categories to (apparently) duplicate. The lists add the feature of being able to add characteristics that facilitate identification and browsing, the categories provide an automatic way to make sure things don't get omitted, and to build a hierarchy. DGG (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said they were (MickMacNee was misreading my point). The point was that in this particular case the article fails the criteria as a list but passes as a category.  Lists are subject to a stricter criteria of notability as they are main namespace articles, while categories are not.  Many cases can be imagined where both a list and a category are preferable to either or none. Themfromspace (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Notabilty for basic lists is a total misnomer. If the title is not something like List of gophers who have swam the Channel, then notability can just be assumed per common sense. And as for categories, I recently had a category of mine deleted on, you guessed it, notability grounds. I am to this day none the wiser as to how I was suposed to prove notability for what as basically a navigation tool. Go figure. MickMacNee (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Lists_(stand-alone_lists). "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles, and as such are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others."  WP:N is one of these content policies and it does have to be proven outside of the title.  Sorry. Themfromspace (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there we go. Maybe the world is divided into those people who do realise that books about cakes have existed since the year dot, and those who honestly don't. I wonder if it would be possible to actually find a list of cakes on the internets. It surely sounds like mission impossible to me. Maybe a cake has to have been baked by Einstein to be notable, and then be listed with multiple other famous cakes. What utter ButterScotch if you ask me. MickMacNee (talk)
 * Delete as redundant to a category. (Before you point me at WP:CLN, that explains that categories, lists, and navboxes may all exist, not that they must.) Stifle (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Everyone's talking about expansion potential but nobody is actually expanding. This will probably get deleted on the next run through unless someone has proven it can be more than a simple list. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me, if they're in the USA, everybody is actually expanding, partly due to a list of cakes.John Z (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete IMO a wholly useless list that conveys no more information than a category. How exactly do you define what is or isn't a cake? Is a cake only sweet or does it include savoury cakes? What is the difference between a cake and a biscuit (cookie)? It took a UK court ruling to define that a Jaffa cake was indeed a cake and not a biscuit. RMHED (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Is a tart a cake? What about pancakes? RMHED (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be useful, even if it is useless now. I've made a start at expanding it to make it more useful and will continue to do so assuming it isn't deleted. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  21:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Okay, I've tried to make this into a useful list. Those considering a delete might like to take another look. Thanks. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  22:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I see a lot of hard work, for which I congratulate you, but still essentially the same list. Nothing has changed for me except the format and volume of data in it. I stand by my original !vote. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I'm afraid I still don't find it useful, though the effort is to be commended. A pineapple upside-down cake has pineapple in it?  And the contents of a wedding cake "vary"?  Sorry, I still think the category is sufficient.  Powers T 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of a list,I presumed, was to provide an overview allowing the reader to focus on something they might wish to explore in more detail, which a category doesn't. The distinctive ingredients was the best I could come up with but that doesn't mean additional columns couldn't be added to provide a better or additional reason to use the list. Agreed the pineapple point is fair, but some of the others are more useful! Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  16:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per the change in the format and the volume of data in it. The addition of distinugishing information takes this out fo the category of an indiscriminate list.  I can't see other changes would be satisfactory, unless one were to change each item to the name of an American president and then to rename this "List of American presidents".  Mandsford (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't slice that cake list! I say Keep the article and work to expand it -- there is a good foundation here, so why not build on it? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious scope issues mean that while this can be made to work as a category, it is unsuitable as article content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:53, 2 December 2008 (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.