Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cook's Decameron


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. Per {{u|pburka}'s sources.  Sandstein  10:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Cook's Decameron

 * – ( View AfD View log )

1901 cookbook. No secondary sources, no claim to notability and none is evident. Search results are directory entries of reprints.  Sandstein  16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The book was popular enough to justify a 2nd edition nearly 20 years after the first and has been the subject of many published reviews, e.g.
 * Given that so little content from that time period has been digitized, it's fair to assume there's a lot more than just these, but the chapter from the 2010 Boccaccio Conference ought to be nearly sufficient on its own to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that so little content from that time period has been digitized, it's fair to assume there's a lot more than just these, but the chapter from the 2010 Boccaccio Conference ought to be nearly sufficient on its own to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that so little content from that time period has been digitized, it's fair to assume there's a lot more than just these, but the chapter from the 2010 Boccaccio Conference ought to be nearly sufficient on its own to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that so little content from that time period has been digitized, it's fair to assume there's a lot more than just these, but the chapter from the 2010 Boccaccio Conference ought to be nearly sufficient on its own to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that so little content from that time period has been digitized, it's fair to assume there's a lot more than just these, but the chapter from the 2010 Boccaccio Conference ought to be nearly sufficient on its own to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that so little content from that time period has been digitized, it's fair to assume there's a lot more than just these, but the chapter from the 2010 Boccaccio Conference ought to be nearly sufficient on its own to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that so little content from that time period has been digitized, it's fair to assume there's a lot more than just these, but the chapter from the 2010 Boccaccio Conference ought to be nearly sufficient on its own to establish notability per WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (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.