Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cook's Bookcase

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. Sandstein 11:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cook's Bookcase[edit]

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

Lacks substantial support. References are no more than a single line mention and some do not mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) 17:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As the nom says this has very poor sourcing (including a two sentence mention in a major publication which seems to have been duplicated verbatim, which I think might be a copyright violation). There's some more significant coverage on questionable sites, e.g. personal blogs and regional interest websites so I'm not dismissing it out of hand but this wiki-article author is clearly reaching to demonstrate notability. I'm suggesting a weak keep more for the effort that's been put in to TRY to cite this subject than the effectiveness of that effort. Notability calls for 2 non-trivial secondary sources. This appears to have 0.5 trivial secondary, 0.75 non-trivial minor secondary and about 3 x 0.25 trivial questionable sources. That math theoretically adds up to a solid 2 but obviously it's shaky math. If this article is deleted that will be understandable, but I suggest the article author be encouraged to add at least one better citation before that point. -Markeer 19:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regional interest website and personal blogs fail the criteria for references to establish notability. A reference is either good .... or its not. There's no such thing as a fraction of a good reference. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to find a few better sources and to reword any areas that may have breached copyrights (as that was unintentional). -Bumsnuggler 4 April 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. The references provided are regional interest and not national. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam sourcing does not quantify Independence of sources, and regional-interest-only is another issue. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 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.