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 delete. I can restore if anyone is interested in merging, but keep in mind that this topic may present WP:UNDUE emphasis that doesn't belong in the target article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic 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)

Delete. Article whose subject fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. - DZ - 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I were able to find some usage: [1][2][3][4][5][6] but it might be better suited to simply being at List of cakes. There was also some usage of the term "naughty cake". Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it's a thing, for sure, but is it notable? Bearian (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no need for a separate article about every shape of cake (e.g., tower cake, sex doll cake). A ton of similar stubs is just mindless clutter. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't demonstrate notability. Possibly transwiki to someplace like wictionary. Anyway, the caption is wrong. It doesn't count as nude if you're wearing a leaf. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge per User:AKS.9955 is not a bad idea, but Cake decorating would be a better target. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Cake. Article is not notable standalone and best merged into the main article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cake. Google shows plenty of potential for the topic, but I think it is best covered in the Cake article. 1292simon (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2017 (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.