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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandertorte[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Although there are some sources to support existence of such food, the article claims it is traditional Latvian food, which it is not. I did a bit of research (see talk of the article) on what it is and even the name seems generic - it refers to type of dough the cake is from. The only thing seting it apart is that sources on it claim it is made with raspberry jam ~~Xil (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per previous talk page reply -- non-notable food product. No multiple reliable secondary sources to establish notability. The "national food" claim is unsubstantiated original research. It's just one of many cake variations. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Xil is correct, Alexandertorte is not a traditional Latvian food. Alexandertorte, or Alexanderkuchen, is a type of pastry that was common in parts of Europe where German culture was predominant prior to World War I - and the name of the pastry is still quite common in Germany under the name of Alexanderkuchen, which you must have noticed if you have ever visited a wellassorted Konditorei in Germany. The name stems from the Russian tsar, as other things also did during that era, like Alexanderplatz etc. I have no idea as to why/when the name was applied to the pastry, and do not, at the moment, have references to validate the origin and notability of the pastry. I just want to add, that even though it is not possible to Google references for this pastry, it did and does exist, and was certainly very familiar to many at the time it was given its name. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figured something like that might be the case. It would certainly lend some notability, however none of this is said in the article - as it stands it is terribly short article, which makes those two sentences claiming it as Latvian pastry more than a half of the article being wrong. As a Latvian dessert it is not notable - hardly any modern Latvian has heard about it. Can't tell about less modern Latvians, but I got a pre-WWII cookbook, that doesn't mention it (under that name, at least) and National libary's pre-WWII press archive, which currently is down, as I remember also gave only one result. Plus there is little information, save some recipces, available on the Internet in any language. Doesn't Wikipedia already have an article on it under yet a different name? I couldn't find any, but if it is German spread thing it ought to be known in several countries, might even still be popular in some ~~Xil (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recipe in an old German recipe book, and it seems that this pastry is claimed by Estonia and Finland as well as Latvia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but my concern is that sole thing I've been able to find is recipces. No telling if this food is widely known somewhere or ever was. If we'd remove false claim of it being traditional Latvian food, all that would be left would be two sentences describing the food - Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Anyways probaly should try to attract attention of editors from other countries too. ~~Xil (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~Xil (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ~~Xil (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. ~~Xil (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fodor says that its a Latvian speciality. Warden (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is strange, since I've hardly encountered it at all here. It's definitely not a traditional food of Latvia, although it may be popular for tourists. There are lots of books mentioning it as popular and giving basic description, but it is hardly the significant coverage GNG requires. I'm not as familiar with notability standards for food products, but it seems it should be more than just passing mentions and recipes. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you suppose a food that is not readily available can be popular with tourists? :) I rather think that it is the result of some sources spreading this rumor of "traditional Latvian food", so some guidebooks republish it rather than doing their own research. Wish Wikipedia wasn't one of the sources spreading this misinformation. I don't think there is notability guideline for food. The problem here is that there might be a cake that is/was popular in Central/Northern European cuisine, however there is little information on it and article itself makes no such claim - it is on traditional Latvian dessert and there is no such traditional Latvian dessert. If you Google it's proper name in Latvian - "Aleksandra torte" turns up only 137 results, plus 88 for "Aleksandra kūka" in them you got some article on Latvian Australians learning to cook it, TV chef Mārtiņš Rītiņš teaching to cook it, one person's blog in which she claims her father used to cook it, plus one company manufactures cake with such name (though I am not sure that is the same thing). That makes it four sorces proving that some Latvians acctualy know about it, and none claim on it being traditional ~~Xil (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – appears to meet WP:GNG per [1], [2]. Also keep per WP:IAR. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why IAR? One of these references mentions topic passingly and the other is a cookbook - not every food in a cookbook deserves an article. There is absolutely no other coverage that would indicate that the food is notable in any way save existing, so much so that it is impossible to expand the article using verified evidence, instead of anecdotes and guesswork. BTW Wikimedia allready does have a cookbook on a different project, complete with recipce for this wonder [3], so no information lost, if that is a concern for somebody ~~Xil (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability appears to be limited to just a few recipes and cookbooks. Not quite enough, in my opinion. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2012 (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.