View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potato Valley Cafe

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. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" (emphasis mine). The argument that the sources do not constitute significant coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE seems to have the strongest support. I will say that a strong argument was presented for inclusion but it just didn't receive support and the policy is written for exactly this reason. These discussions are about how policy applies in these specific cases and this is a time where the presumption of notability does not equate to actual notability. Consensus is to delete. v/r - TP 21:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potato Valley Cafe

[edit]
Potato Valley Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 06:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like a self-promotion piece. Does not establish any notability - it's a restaurant(s) that serves potato(s). Lots of restaurants serve potatos. Runs afoul of WP:SELFPUB & WP:NN. Not to be critical, but there is just does not appear to be a significant relevance to encyclopedic content Яεñ99 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How does this article run afoul of WP:SELFPUB? (I don't think it does whatsoever.) None of the sources in the article are "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" whatsoever. Did you even review the sources? The only source in the article that is even remotely close to violating WP:SELFPUB is [6], which has no information. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is making me hungry but according to WP:CORPDEPTH "routine restaurant reviews" do not establish notability. The way I see it is that many restaurants that exist get reviewed. It's part of business. Even non-notable restaurants get reviewed. A tough call though--if I did not see that in WP:CORPDEPTH I would have said keep. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The following two sources in my !vote above (outlined below) are not routine restaurant reviews:
  • "Potato Valley Café." QSR Magazine. — provides a very comprehensive overview of the restaurants, including information about their owners and operations of the restaurants, which is in addition to the expected information about the restaurant's food.
  • "Potato cafe to butter up D.C." The Washington Times. — About the opening of a second store in Washington D.C. and it's first franchise store in Las Vegas.
Thus, these two articles serve to demonstrate that this topic also actually meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks for your comments. I agree that the QSR article is not a routine restaurant review; it's coverage in a trade publication. But the Washington Times article reads like a routine restaurant review to me, and opening a new location is not notable in itself. So I don't think the latter does much for WP:CORPDEPTH. What I am seeing is a bunch of restaurant reviews, which are explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH, and one in-depth article in a trade publication, which contributes to establishing notability but I don't think it's strong enough on its own. (Multiple sources are needed per WP:CORPDEPTH.) Still a close call, but still on the delete side for me. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Washington Post isn't just some small town paper that covers everything. They decide this place was notable enough to write about. And that wasn't just a routine restaurant review, but a news story so it counts. They also have a routine restaurant review in their section for that at [7], which of course wouldn't count towards notability. They have articles years apart about this place, some hidden behind paywalls so not sure what they are about. But this is enough. Dream Focus 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks for your comments too, but you are mixing up the Washington Post and the Washington Times. I was referring to this article [8] that Northamerica says establishes notability. The Times is a big paper too, but not every article about a local restaurant establishes notability. I still think the article is mainly a restaurant review. It has menu items, ingredients, and prices. A relatively smaller portion of the article is about the new location. Let's say we agree to disagree on whether this is a restaurant review. Even if this is treated as a news article, it does not establish notability because opening a second location is not a notable event. Do you really think that the content of the Times article establishes notability? Or is it just because it is in the Times? Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless Wikipedia is going to compete with Yelp, we don't need articles about every restaurant. As Logical Cowboy noted, most restaurants are going to get reviewed in the local press; that doesn't mean we need articles about all of them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The QSR one? Looks like a restaurant trade journal. I'm not convinced that an article in a trade journal contributes to your loose interpretation of GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the depth and breadth of sources are an important consideration. but mainly relying on restaurant reviews is not enough to establish notability. how many reviews happen because the owner has lobbied a journalist? LibStar (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please stop responding to every single delete as per WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting essay. However, when editors have valid points to make, it's generally better to state them outright, rather than being shushed. While I appreciate your point, note that I haven't responded to "every single" delete !vote. People appear to interpret guidelines in different manners. However, I digress... Northamerica1000(talk) 01:05, 5 September 2012 (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.