Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitchen gadget

{{search for|kitchen utensil}}

:{{la|Kitchen utensil}} – (View AfDView log)

Listcruft, dictionary definition. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Possibly Delete Merge, probably to kitchen utensil: Defining which items in a kitchen are "gadgets" seems like OR. Is a fork a "gadget"? Is a container a gadget? The definition seems to be pretty much made-up, and I see no objective way to categorize things thus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• It also says "tool or utensil". So: Is a fork a utensil? ☺

  And if you don't think that kitchen utensils cannot be categorized because no-one outside of Wikipedia has done so, then you haven't put "kitchen utensil" into a search engine. Have a book that categorizes kitchen utensils:

• {{cite book|title=Kitchen utensils: names, origins, and definitions through the ages|first=Phillips V.|last=Brooks|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|year=2004|isbn=9781403966193}}
• Have an encyclopaedia with an entry for kitchen utensils, too:
• {{cite encyclopaedia|encyclopedia=The householders' encyclopedia|article=kitchen utensils|first1=Stanley|last1=Schuler|first2=Elizabeth Meriwether|last2=Schuler|publisher=Galahad Books|year=1975|isbn=9780883653012}}
• And some other things:
• {{cite book|title=Kitchen utensils|series=Science in the kitchen|first1=David|last1=Byrne|first2=Mike|last2=Wheeler|publisher=Longman|year=1995|isbn=9780582124578}}
• {{cite book|title=The woodworker's book of wooden kitchen utensils|first=Vance|last=Studley|publisher=Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.|year=1981|isbn=9780442247263}}
• {{cite book|title=The Gilded Age|first=Joel|last=Shrock|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|year=2004|isbn=9780313322044}}
• Don't you think that it would be good if Wikipedia were an encyclopaedia, with an article on kitchen utensils telling readers such interesting facts about kitchen utensils as that in 1881 the number of kitchen utensils considered adequate for a well-stocked kitchen by Maria Parloa was 139 {{harv|Shrock|2004|pp=115}}? Parloa's 1908 book has a fair amount itself to say on the subject of cooking utensils, and kitchen utensils in general, too. There are other contemporary sources that even touch upon the materials science of kitchen utensils. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not saying that "Kitchen utensils" aren't already out there in references, but we have two separate articles here, this list of "gadgets" and List of food preparation utensils (linked in the See also section). I think the distinction between "gadgets" and "utensils" is too weak to have both, with the literature largely using the latter. It's also saying that if something is electric it's an "appliance" but if it's hand-powered it's a "gadget", and I don't really see any support for those definitions. Maybe it would be better to merge the two lists and just have one of kitchen utensils? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• You make the same merger suggestion as was made on the article's talk page in 2009. I'd prefer this, refactored somewhat, at kitchen utensil, too, not least because that's the name that turned up when I went looking in cookery books, household encyclopaedias, and the like. The article's creator wasn't really intending to make a distinction between gadgets and utensils, it appears. {{diff|Talk:Kitchen gadget|prev|184217449|Apparently}}, this article, originally at Kitchen Gadget, was created because List of food preparation utensils is sorted into alphabetical order, just like :Category:Food preparation utensils :Category:Food utensils :Category:Cooking utensils is. I think that the name was ill-chosen, and not the primary focus in writing (It wasn't even capitalized correctly, after all.), but just a name that seemed "good enough" at the time. There's no really useful edit history at kitchen utensil, and keeping the "list of" out of the title will discourage writing a list that just duplicates the category. Out of the twain, I think that list of food preparation utensils is the truly problematic article, here, because it has the wrong scope, and merely duplicates the category. Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yep, I agree, and I think you're right about list of food preparation utensils. I'm changing my !vote to Merge. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to kitchen utensil, since that is a more serious word. There is nothing much else to do besides list them. Facts such as 139 being the right number to have in your kitchen in 1908 are really just opinions. An overall history of kitchen utensils seems a bit problematic since I wouldn't expect much to have been written on the topic, rather than the history of individual utensils. Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• I point to another encyclopaedia's article on kitchen utensils, amongst other things, and you say "I wouldn't expect much to have been written on the topic"! You didn't really read the prior discussion here on this very page, let alone look for yourself to see what sources are available discussing the subject, before giving this opinion, did you? And what Shrock writes about Parloa is a verifiable fact about Parloa's book, not an opinion. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Merge/disambig: Items on this list should be on either Home appliance or kitchen utensil]. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• That rationale doesn't make sense, now, for two different reasons. The second is that "this list" doesn't have a referent. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Move to Kitchen utensil. nothing there to actually merge. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• That has now been done by DGG. This is the first reason that Maury Markowitz's rationale doesn't make sense. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2011 (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.