Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy buffet

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. I find User:Ibadibam's second argument persuasive. An article on different wedding banquet traditions across different cultures would probably be a neat thing to have, but at the moment there's no content in the proposed target article and not enough coverage to indicate that candy buffets are a widespread thing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candy buffet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as most Google hits found are how-to's or "where can you buy this" stuff. Gives the feel of an advertisement and acts certainly (see history) as a spam-magnet. The Banner talk 21:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wedding reception - Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, but worth mentioning in the context of other wedding reception elements. Ibadibam (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. Read Wedding reception#Food and Wedding reception#Banquet procedure. These are very brief, general summaries, which already inform readers that the food varies by cultural custom. There is no appropriate place in the article for a quick aside about the tiny phenomenon of candy buffets in the United States. Ringbang (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wedding reception or delete. Merging would possibly be undue. Customs which are described as emerging do not deserve the same amount of space as those that are clearly established by reliable sources. And they certainly don't deserve their own article without satisfying the WP:GNG. I don't see much in the way of significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No sense redirecting if there's no related content on the target page. Better to delete if not merging. Ibadibam (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.