Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirt 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt cake[edit]

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

A 2 sentence stub about a dessert that doesn't even attempt to assert notability. One sentence is directions on making it. I can't find a lot of significant coverage in reliable sources. Most things I found were basically a recipe and some talk about making it. Since the majority of the article and the coverage is about making it, I think we're in WP:NOTAMANUAL territory. Article has no sources, tagged as such for 6 months. Tagged as an orphan for a year. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 513 for "Dirt cake" from Google News.--Caspian blue 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we know that WP:GHITS is an argument to avoid. Did you look at the returns? Second return was an 11 year old saying she liked the dish, then gave the recipe. I'm not too convinced that is significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search. I presented Google News, not just Ghits. (46,200 for "Dirt cake" from Google web) --Caspian blue 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've read it. Your reason is still "look at the number of hits from Google". Whether it is GNews, GBooks or whatever else, it's still counting hits and asserting it as an indication of notability. Quality of returns is more important than the number of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added one book ref and a 'References' section and am looking through the other possibilities for additional references appropriate to add. This dessert has enough references to be found sufficiently notable for inclusion. Yes, the article does need improvement/expansion, but it should be kept so that those changes can occur. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All 4 references (actually only 3 because one is listed twice) are mainly instructions on how to make it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources offer more than just instructions on how to make it. Polargeo (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 and 3 are the same one, and doesn't even give a full recipe. It only gives a one sentence description. Source 2 is solely a recipe. Source 4 is the recipe and a woman talking about her personal experience with it. You said sources plural, so please tell me which ones are more than just instructions? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those references. The Avakian book shows it in social context. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and references. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2010 (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.