Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham cake
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 merge to Tottenham. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tottenham cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable, originally cites only one (dubious) source, the second reference now cited basically is a telly programme which has used this page as its reference. Star-one (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's notable now even if it was not then. Having seen the TV programme in question, the allegation that the piece was nothing more than a mirror of the WP article is not sustainable. We have to distinguish between the notability of the subject of an article and whether we think that the sources are correct on the history. That the programme makers did not offer a substantially different account of its origins may just mean that the sources are right in the first place. The programme made much of the Quaker connection with a number of interviews, and almost nothing of the football association other than the name. --AJHingston (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is one reference on a telly programme mostly using this article as source material, and an interview with somebody baking it not referring to any sources sufficient notability? Star-one (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the Twitter stream around the time of the broadcast, beyond the excitement of seeing somebody they knew being interviewed on the telly, all the Quakers commenting expressed surprise at never having heard of it themselves. Star-one (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am interested in the statement that the BBC researcher relied on WP as their source. That may well be, as it is of what other journalists produce today, but I do not recall it being said in the item itself. As for the Twitter discussion, those commenting may have been right in disbelieving the version offered of the cake's history, but one has to ask how they would know it was wrong, and what members of the local meeting concluded when they discussed it on the following Sunday. The claim was not particularly that it was made by people who are members, though one did, but originally by a commercial baker who was a Quaker, and that the colouring was from the mulberry which grows in the grounds of the meeting house. Very little was said about an association with Spurs. As for notability, a fairly substantial piece in a national programme with high viewing figures does count toward that. There will be people who now associate Tottenham with the cake just as much with the football team, and with very little else. Deletion is not the right forum for questioning the accuracy of what is said in an article. --AJHingston (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My claim of it being based solely on WP stems from there being no information in the item on the programme which wasn't also in this article - there was no evidence of second source information, even the interview with the Quaker baker repeated information already in this article. Admittedly this evidence wouldn't stand up in a criminal court trial, but I think it stands in this instanceStar-one (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am interested in the statement that the BBC researcher relied on WP as their source. That may well be, as it is of what other journalists produce today, but I do not recall it being said in the item itself. As for the Twitter discussion, those commenting may have been right in disbelieving the version offered of the cake's history, but one has to ask how they would know it was wrong, and what members of the local meeting concluded when they discussed it on the following Sunday. The claim was not particularly that it was made by people who are members, though one did, but originally by a commercial baker who was a Quaker, and that the colouring was from the mulberry which grows in the grounds of the meeting house. Very little was said about an association with Spurs. As for notability, a fairly substantial piece in a national programme with high viewing figures does count toward that. There will be people who now associate Tottenham with the cake just as much with the football team, and with very little else. Deletion is not the right forum for questioning the accuracy of what is said in an article. --AJHingston (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the Twitter stream around the time of the broadcast, beyond the excitement of seeing somebody they knew being interviewed on the telly, all the Quakers commenting expressed surprise at never having heard of it themselves. Star-one (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge either to Tottenham or Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. I see nothing about it that is separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Peter and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - I would support a merger of the single verifiable fact of this cake's existence into Tottenham, with a link to the fansite.Star-one (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2013 (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.