Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biscuit warmer

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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuit warmer[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No suitable sources. Only source is an online shop selling the product. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this item has a long history. There are any number of auction catalogs, and there are probably examples in the collections of multiple museums. There's a good likelihood that it is covered in books about antique sterling, silverplate, tableware. Unfortunately I'm not easily finding them online with previews. I think this might require a trip to an actual library. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously a real kitchen item with a source. Per Valereee, this is an item found in antique stores. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I suggest it wasn't real? We still need significant coverage in secondary sources, whether a topic is real or not... AusLondonder (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the internet via a Google search has numerous pages listing biscuit warmers for sale. There are even YouTube videos on them. These are as commonplace in kitchens as frying pans. — Maile (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how does this address GNG sourcing requirements? Sales listings are clearly not suitable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Archive.org has a lot of hits, but not a lot of description, probably because it's a tool not requiring a lot of explanation. There are also multiple types, e.g., a commercial warmer with heat element, an appliance suitable for warming biscuits[1], a cozy-type crocheted covers, and a piece of silverware. Here are the best sources I could find (not much):

Helliwell, Understanding antique silver plate ("shell-fluted biscuit warmer by James Dixon and Sons of Sheffield (see page 219). The two lids drop down to reveal compartments with hinged, pierced covers. Hot biscuits or muffins were stored inside the closed compartments and placed before an open fire, ensuring that the contents maintained their warmth These spectacular pieces are now so popular they are being reproduced. Luckily modern copies are easily recognisable, as their cast handles and feet lack the crisp detail of the originals")
San Rafael Daily Independent described as a popular item in a marketplace for hand-crocheted items
Kingston Daily Freeman describing an appliance as "costing no more than an ordinary biscuit warmer"

@User:Wallclockticking can you give us some input into how you decided to write this article, and whether you used an AI text generator? The text is very smooth and generic, and it's hard to understand the decision to use, as the single source, a commercial kitchenware sales link that doesn't have a lot of content. Frankly I'm wondering if the article may have been created to support the advertising link at bottom. Do you have a relationship, paid or otherwise, with Smart Buffet Ware? Did you use an AI text generation tool? Oblivy (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely this person was paid. Looks like they just have an interest in cooking or food. They also have Draft:Bread fork. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bread fork was created with one cite to a museum page, and two blog pages including an extremely ad-laden https://www.cocoaandheart.co.uk. There's also Draft:Spaghetti spoon which was created with a link to a sales site. And while the edit pattern has recently been about cooking or food, the main body of work has been BLP articles[2][3][4][5].
Some of those BLP articles, now deleted for notability, have been the subject of UPI allegations like this AfD and this talk page comment. Vince Dao still bears an UPI template, which hasn't been addressed by @Wallclockticking. Such accusations are easy to make and we can't see the deleted articles so take a Salt spoon of salt with these allegations Oblivy (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, I have nothing to say to you. The last time a page I created was put up for deletion and I tried defending the page, I was tagged a paid editor for putting up an effort to stop a page I wasted my time to create from being deleted. I learnt my lesson and now I don't care about these debates anymore. I just want to edit Wikipedia because I find it therapeutic and it makes me feel like I am making an impact in the world. Bye. Wallclockticking (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cited one source, a single online seller's website that doesn't support the article material, and I wanted to know why. I still want to know, and no, you don't have to answer me. But I would think that as someone who wants to make an impact you might like to participate here, to help move the debate towards a keep consensus.
I was trying to stop this article from getting deleted, by looking up sources. It was only after @Maile66 suggested you were into cooking/food that I looked through your edit history and saw a pattern of having pages challenged for poor sourcing, including under circumstances where other editors questioned whether you are being paid. You didn't address the concerns then either which, again, is your prerogative but why write articles only to see them challenged and potentially deleted? Oblivy (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, but it is clear above, that my comment was in defense of the editor, following your comment suggesting User:Wallclockticking was a paid editor. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You said he might be into cooking/food meaning not a paid editor. But your comment prompted me to look more deeply into the edit history (in fact, I had noted the commercial link on Spaghetti spoon already) Oblivy (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if examples or an item are in the collection of a museum, it's quite likely a notable item. Oblivy, what museum page are you looking at for Bread fork? I'm not easily finding it in the history. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability rules demand text describing the item at some level of detail. It's likely the silverplate item is in museums but biscuit warmers as a category aren't. Think of it like WP:NLIST - are people writing about the group of items as a group? If not the group name isn't notable.
The museum page for "bread fork" is FN1 on Draft:Bread fork which is a cite to the V&A museum. Archive.org has sales catalogs with the term. These[6][7] may be something, but the first is two sentences and the second is an ad. Although I find WP:DICDEF is often misapplied here at AfD, that one seems to fit the bill. Oblivy (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able even to find an explicit definition (in a non-advert part of few newspapers, one listed). For the ones looking for more: concentrate on post-war USA, where multiple households were entering the middle class, and ladies of the house needed to figure out their new kitchen needs. --Викидим (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do lean towards keep. A real-world item. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ without prejudice to creating Folding biscuit box with a redirect. Alternatively article could be kept and then reduced to a stub limited to what can be documented with WP:RS.
@Викидим made some edits that led me to search for "folding biscuit box". It's the Victorian silver plate fireside warmer shown in the Helliwell book, and other silver collector guides have good information under that name:

Those don't support notability of the current article topic, because it describes a variety of things. For example, the sales site (which I removed as it was devoid of relevant content) showed a catering item with an electric heating element. Some are insulated. Some 50's-style multifunction appliances appear in search results because they can be used as a biscuit warmer. And the silver-plate ones are meant to be put by the fire. I can only find significant coverage for the last one, and nothing talking about all these different things as a group. Putting them together, even if the same name is used for all, has elements of WP:SYNTH.

@Викидим you added a link to a Bakersfield Californian article, which you describe as a definition in a newspaper. I can't find that source. Can you give us more detail? Oblivy (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a short anonymous entry in a newspaper, among other advice to housewives. Nothing is directly promoted in this section, no brands are mentioned, the section consists of the definition that I paraphrased in the article. You can search and read the US newspapers in the Newspaper Archive (free access through the Wikipedia Library program) to see for yourself. I would not start an article myself based on just this source, as it would be close to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, however, I still support keeping what we have, as sources for everyday items can be usually found. Definitions are harder to come by, that's why I am happy that I have found one, even though it obviously does not cover large industrial-size machines. Викидим (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded to you at Talk:Biscuit warmer. Perhaps we can agree it can be kept, but I think it should be limited to the silver plate item and we can jettison the rest. Wikipedia doesn't need to cover everything even if WP:ITEXISTS (and the name is self-descriptive if encountered in the wild). Oblivy (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support your position: keep the silver piece portion, delete other unsourced material. Викидим (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as it has now been rewritten with a narrower scope, citing multiple reliable sources that describe the item in significant detail (relatively, for a kitchen utensil). Oblivy (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there more that can be added to the article? And any images? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, no free use images, all the antique books are within the U.S. copyright period. @Викидим added a comment about collectability, but beyond that this is a pretty thin topic. Oblivy (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2024 (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.