Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date and walnut loaf

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date and walnut loaf

Transwiki this article to Wikibooks, then delete from Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, traditional cake. Not a recipe, so there is nothing to transwiki. Kappa 17:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• <holds sealed envelope to his head>...Let me guess...it's a loaf made with dates and walnuts...<opens envelope>. It is! Delete. Nothing here. I suppose we'll be seeing cranberry, macadamia nut, and raisin cookies next. -R. fiend 17:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• In what sense is cranberry, macadamia nut, and raisin cookies a traditional food? Kappa 18:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Niz 19:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article is expanded before the end of nomination period. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Rune Welsh. Dicdef, and no real info other than the British thing. --MacRusgail 15:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's just remind ourselves what Wikipedia is about ... it's about there being somewhere where people can go to get access to the sum of human knowledge. My view on deletion proposals like this one is that if (a) somebody, somewhere, at some point, might want to find out about a particular topic, and (b) a Wikipedia article exists which has the potential to enable somebody to become more informed about that subject than they were before reading that article and (c) the subject matter doesn't sit better in one of the other Wikimedia projects, we shouldn't be deleting it. On this basis, there is enough in this article to warrant it being kept. There appears to be an element of "I didn't learn anything from this article, so no-one else could either" in some of the above comments. Put yourselves in the position of someone who knows absolutely nothing about cakes, who hears the phrase "Date and walnut loaf" for the first time, and looks it up in Wikipedia. What value would this article provide? First it would enable them to validate that such a cake does actually exist; without this article, for all they know, Date & Walnut loaf is as fictitious as "rhubarb and hazelnut tart" or "gooseberry and brazil nut pie". The article give details of a geographical area in which the cake is a traditional food, and in which it is still eaten. It also gives two pieces of information about the the cake's composition over and above what one could glean from the name. I make that five useful pieces of information in total. Add to that the links to recipes, and ... Wow! What a useful article!! But then I wrote it so I'm biased... SP-KP 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It also tells me it's a kind of cake, not a kind of bread or meatloaf, which it might have been. Kappa 17:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • And not forgetting the categorisation at the bottom, which will introduce our cake virgin to a whole new world of information about cakes. Delete? ... Pfffff!!!!! SP-KP 22:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • To be fair to SP-KP, I spent about 30 minutes searching for information to add to this article. A google search for "date and walnut loaf" -recipe -chopped gives 502 results, most of which just link to recipe pages. I can't find anything about the history of this cake, how it became a traditional British recipe, its popularity in various regions, etc. That is, I can't find anything that could reasonably be used to expand the article. I have no problem with stub articles, but they should have a potential for expansion; I can find no evidence that such information exists for this article. Mindmatrix 17:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As a further note, I wanted this article transwikied because I think the information in this article should be salvaged, and I'm sure someone would be willing to add a recipe to go with it. Mindmatrix 17:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article needs to be expanded heavily though, as a stub it is close to useless "Date and Walnut Load" made with Dates and Walnuts. Y control 10:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Yes, as it stands currently, it is a bad article (actually, not really an article at all). Nevertheless, as Kappa points out, it's a traditional food, and as such, I am sure that quite a bit could be added to this article. Why do people make these? What time of year do they eat them? Do they keep them, or give them away as gifts (see also fruitcake)? Who made the first one? etc. (Also, if you can't find this kind of information online, that doesn't mean there's nothing at your local library.... Google is not the sum of all information.) --Jacquelyn Marie 02:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't trying to imply that google, or the internet, is the only repository of information. Rather, it was the most convenient way to search for information for me - not everyone has access to a decent library. I also wanted to show that I didn't just mindlessly nominate this; I did put in some effort to try and expand the article. Mindmatrix 17:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Expand or delete. As it stands it's a dicdef. Pilatus 21:09, 27 October 2005 (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.