Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cookbooks

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 with no prejudice against categorization. If somebody requires any of the information for categorization, please let me know. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cookbooks

Delete. This will always be a hopelessly incomplete list. Hundreds of thousands of cookbooks have been published since the 15th century. Wikipedia discourages lists such as these as they do not serve any significant purpose to the project. Recently, other lists such as this have been deleted per the same policy (List of World War II veterans, List of Korean War veterans, et. al.). Very few of the cookbooks on this list have individual entries, whereas the authors that are listed have lists of their cookbooks on their individual pages. In the article Cookbooks, some famous cookbooks are listed as examples, which should suffice in place of this useless article.--Spacini (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question - Although I do agree with your general reasoning, upon what are you basing this Article as useless. An encyclopedic endevour cannot forsee to what uses its information will be put or used. To me, some of this nomanation seem to contain WP:Crystalballery. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Too general, can (if not is) covered by categories more effectively. BWH76 (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much too general. Most of these cookbooks don't have their own articles, and about half the authors don't have their own articles, so it looks like this is supposed to be a list of all cookbooks. Amazon has about 100,000 cookbooks, and I imagine that there are at least as many that Amazon doesn't carry, so this will be a mighty long list (and it's off to a very slow start, with only about 50 books). I can imagine useful lists of cookbooks (in accordance with WP:CLN), but this isn't one, and I don't see how it can be turned into one aside from throwing it out and starting again. Klausness (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At best, a category could cover the subject. A list really serves no purpose, as the items that could be on the list, like Fannie Farmer or James Beard, are already well known precisely as cookbooks, and someone wanting to find other cookbooks of a particular genre would be better served by the category system. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook (err cookbook) case for the use of categories TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it contains nothing by Rachael Ray; and also (and perhaps even more importantly) because a category would really be better for cataloguing this information. Almost indiscriminate list. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be a horribly unmanageable and indiscriminate list. For instance, should The Charlie Brown Cookbook (20 page stapled-together book with about 30 sandwich recipes) be included? Any of the 847,396 cookbooks gathering dust in my mom's pantry? 500 (That's Numberwang!) Foods You Can Make with Leftover Fast-Food Sauce Packets and Re-Heated Chinese Takeout? Dr. Fahrvergnügen's Easy Foods for People with The 'Beetus? Etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise contents (if not already) and delete. Such a broad-spanning subject is much better served by the category system. -- saberwyn 23:49, 22 April 2008 (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.