Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muffin paper cup
From 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 Muffin. WjBscribe 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Muffin paper cup
This article concerns a non-notable product (I guess is the paper lining when you buy a cupcake.) It just has no reason for being. Suggest delete and merge any useful content to "muffin" Wehwalt 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. as this IS rather notable, albeit useless information. Does ANYONE not know what these are? I think not. 164.116.253.7 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete How well known they are is irrelevant. Notability is a different criterion. This is nothing more than a dictionary definition and I don't see any potential for it to be anything more than that.Chunky Rice 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete I'm sure these must have a history to them, but I can't find anything online; the best I found was one brief reference that said they were developed in the early 1900s. If no one finds any sources to make this article more than a dicdef, I would support deletion. Brianyoumans 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reluctant weak delete As per Brianyoumans I'm sure these have a history but I can't find it. I don't like the title though, if it's kept it should probably redirect to Cupcake liner or Muffin liner. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Of course, I would be happy to change my opinion if someone could come up with a reliable source about the history of the muffin cup. I just couldn't find anything.Chunky Rice 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think it can expanded... I've added a bit. --W.marsh 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Muffin. I sincerely doubt there's enough to be said about muffin paper cups to merit an encyclopedia article, and what information there is would be better discussed in the main article on muffins. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Muffin per Krimpet, above. Do some cleanup. Maybe transwiki to like a culinary wiki (wikicookie?). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The only incoming link is Blueberry muffin? How important can this be? At best it is one-and-a-half sentences in the baking article. This is a tool is cooking, with no notability apart from that. Shenme 02:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Muffin, or create an article for Muffin Pan and merge it into that. On the other hand I do not see an article for Cake pan, much less a Pan liner article, although there is one for Sheet pan. Perhaps a Cake pan article should be created, and merge all these aspects of cake-making, including assorted pans for various cakes, and liners and muffin cups and such, into that. Good grief now I'm getting hungry. -- T-dot (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
-
- Comment Why don't we all go out for muffins and coffee then? Dibs on the corn one. Seriously, I can't think the answer to an unwarranted article is to create another one. Probably best to delete this and merge to Muffin or baking.--Wehwalt 14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take you up on the coffee. Mmm, caffeine.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why don't we all go out for muffins and coffee then? Dibs on the corn one. Seriously, I can't think the answer to an unwarranted article is to create another one. Probably best to delete this and merge to Muffin or baking.--Wehwalt 14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
possibly unsupportablekeep -I agree that this won't satisfy WP:N, as I can't see how "muffin paper cups" could have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, unless as minor subject-matter in scholastic works by historians of muffin-making.(Note that Wikipedia also has 1000 Simpsons articles, the subjects of which have not all been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works - and the same for the thousands of articles on villages in Saskatchewan.) However, "muffin paper cups" do exist in reality. My mom uses them. Significant information could be included - such as what they are and have been made of, the history of their use, issues associated with their use and so on. I suggest marking it as a stub. But I also suggest renaming it to "cupcake liner", or whatever they are sold as in stores - because I suspect "muffin paper cup" isn't their proper name. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- comment - actually, when you think about it, every single manufactured good is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Cupcake liners will come in boxes that may say what they're made of, what is an acceptable use for them, and so on; and being manufactured, they'll also have engineering schematics, or even ISO/QS standards for their manufacture. The factory will have a tooling manual on how to set up the machine; the engineer would have devised the optimum number of crimps per circle, and you might find discussions on that topic in some periodical for manufacturing engineers. And I bet some older cookbooks (written back when people cooked, ha ha) would even have small sections on cupcake liners - when to use them and when not, or even which brands to look for. What say you all to that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are you talking about satisfying WP:N? Because those would be either primary source documents produced by the maker of the product (instructions, patent info, production docs, etc.) or trivial mentions (cookbooks). The only exception would be somethign that was in a manufacturing journal, and if you can turn up such a document, you'd be halfway to multiple sources.Chunky Rice 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can guarantee you that there will be writeups in periodicals relating to the optimal number of crimps per circle. I also bet you won't find them on the internet. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you are aware of other sources, then by all means, add them to the article, but it sounds like you're just speculating.Chunky Rice 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'm really starting to waste everyone's time here, but I just went to my mom's cabinets and found some Reynolds cupcake liners. Here's an example of available info: They come in 4 sizes (60, 80, 100, 120mL - not sure about the unit, I can't remember). There is a US Patent for them. I agree this is "primary sources", but the information should still be useable (though I agree it doesn't satisfy your WP:N), as I don't see how one can reasonably dispute its verifiability. I dunno why something that exists and is significant in baking fails notability - but I can see your point if your argument is that a cupcake liner article simply doesn't fit in an encyclopaedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- [1] - the last paragraph under "pans" says: "Paper or foil muffin cup liners are sometimes used to line the muffin pans. The advantage of paper liners is not only does it make clean-up easier but they also help to keep the muffins moist and help prevent them from drying out. However, if you like your muffins to have a crust, do not use paper liners. Instead, spray the muffin pan with a non stick vegetable spray." Sounds just like something from the article, in fact. And the link was already added to the article on 11 April. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment - added a reference into the article from the Hormel Foods site. There, now you have documented proof that muffin cups exist. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can guarantee you that there will be writeups in periodicals relating to the optimal number of crimps per circle. I also bet you won't find them on the internet. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are you talking about satisfying WP:N? Because those would be either primary source documents produced by the maker of the product (instructions, patent info, production docs, etc.) or trivial mentions (cookbooks). The only exception would be somethign that was in a manufacturing journal, and if you can turn up such a document, you'd be halfway to multiple sources.Chunky Rice 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment - actually, when you think about it, every single manufactured good is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Cupcake liners will come in boxes that may say what they're made of, what is an acceptable use for them, and so on; and being manufactured, they'll also have engineering schematics, or even ISO/QS standards for their manufacture. The factory will have a tooling manual on how to set up the machine; the engineer would have devised the optimum number of crimps per circle, and you might find discussions on that topic in some periodical for manufacturing engineers. And I bet some older cookbooks (written back when people cooked, ha ha) would even have small sections on cupcake liners - when to use them and when not, or even which brands to look for. What say you all to that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge → Cookware and bakeware. I think the suggestion to merge to muffin is an artifact of what the tool is most commonly used for, but it is actually a general baking tool the utility of which is broader than simply baking muffins. (gee - I'm getting this feeling that I'm writing a Muppet Show sketch about an encounter between Beaker and the Swedish Chef). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to both muffin and cupcake. Caknuck 08:04, 19 April 2007 (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.
