Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink

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 speedy delete author consent to delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boulder Dam Brewing Company

Boulder Dam Brewing Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable brewing company. My speedy deletion tag was removed for a specious reason. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There is an assertion, so that might have been the reason the A7 tag was removed, but that said this is NN. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V and may also be a COI. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 07:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that COI is not a valid reason for deletion.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But failure to fit in to WP:CORP is. --Kickstart70TC 03:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The Google results yields at least two independent sources that discuss the place which would address the issue of the current referencing. Apparently, this place is a restaurant too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Independent sources available. The restaurant/brewery is used as a local museum for artifacts from the building of the Hoover Dam. It has been recognized by several magazines as a big attraction in the area. Gr0ff (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question Which sources are you referring to? When I searched google, the only thing I found that meeting the references criteria was this, an article in Las Vegas Review-Journal. The other reviews on google were from a review website that anyone could submit to, and the two links on the article itself are from the brewery's website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete because there is very little proper sourcing. I've had a look on Google and I can't find anything decent. Reyk _YO! 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's some print sources we're missing. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the onus is on those arguing to keep to provide those sources- not just assert they exist and leave it at that. I'm quite happy to change my mind, but I need to be convinced first. Reyk _YO! 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a Google search and found nothing in the way of reliable sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's all about WP:CORP, and frankly editors refusing to heed that guideline, which was built on consensus. --Kickstart70TC 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. The 458-odd hits on both Google and Yahoo are 99.9% not qualified as secondary sources. Geoff (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as author and sole contributor. If user-created content does not count as a secondary source, then agreed that article fails WP:CORP. I have no interest in being disruptive to argue this point. Gr0ff (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2008 (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.

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 speedy redirect to Qormeh sabzi. Alternative spelling Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gorma Sabze

Gorma Sabze (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Too empty article about Persian cuisine, with just a recipe coming soon in the article, which looks more like a recipe. I've google it and didn't found any relevant links, so I am AfDing to see if it's suitable. macy 02:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. When I first saw the article, I deleted the "recipe coming soon" mention with a summary stating that Wikipedia is not a recipe book. The article asserts no notability for this dish as a staple of Persian cuisine. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Redirect, as per Mangoe's comment. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Qormeh sabzi. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as alternative spelling of existing article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (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.

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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA^duel 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polarbröd

Polarbröd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable bread company. "Sweeden's 3rd largest bread company" doesn't make it notable. Tavix (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Also has some WP:CITE issues, if it is indeed the third largest this would need to be cited. Also the list of employees seems to have some NOR issues. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - enough sources here to meet WP:ORG and from which it can be expanded. Further material, and sources, here. TerriersFan (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Needs expansion, improvement and the addition of references.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - As it now appears refs can be found. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, issues can be solved by editing instead of deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Marcusmax's turnaround. — neuro^(talk) 12:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the article needs a lot of cleanup, it is definitely notable. I'll see if I can put something together soon. Plrk (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Just needs to be expanded, the sources indicate it's notable. ☺ Spiby ☻ 14:14, 19 November 2008 (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.

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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). The article needs better referencing, to be certain, but WP:RS concerns were fully addressed by Phil and Geoff (thanks, guys!). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brasserie Les Halles

Brasserie Les Halles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails notability requirements per WP:CORP and WP:REST. Note that these restaurants are (were) names after the famous Les Halles in Paris, but are not otherwise related. This may confuse notability searches. Please understand the notability requirements on this (generally, reviews do not confer notability). --Kickstart70TC 06:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. What notability guideline (and I don't mean a proposed guideline containing one person's idiosyncratic view of notability) says that reviews do not confer notability? They confer notability on restaurants in just the same way that reviews confer notability on books, plays, films, exhibitions, musical works etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Brasserie Les Halles is very well known in New York City, and has national notability as a result of being featured on Anthony Bourdain's popular television show and in the title of one of his books. I suppose it's well known elsewhere now as well since additional restaurants have opened. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Always with respect, CoM, but notability needs to be proven...you're using OR :) --Kickstart70TC 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Being featured in a major cookbook and on a major television series (repeatedly) is notability as best I can tell. Plus it's a pretty big deal and an institution of sorts in NY. But I'm often outvoted. So maybe others will have a different take! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I don't mind if you are right and I am wrong, but since I don't know the show or the book (likely same for most people here) we need a little more to go on. --Kickstart70TC 07:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - though the article itself lacks sources at the moment, it's not hard to find them using various kinds of Google searches.--Boffob (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I added book cites to two of the Bourdain books in which the restaraunt is prominently featured, including the titular Anthony Bourdain's Les Halles Cookbook. The article does need internal references and additional editing, but the subject meets WP:N standards IMHO. Geoff (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - internationally known restaurant (more for literary reputation of chef patron than cuisine but still...). Obviously needs work. Terwilliger (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Snow it Keep I live in London and mostly on toast, have never seen the Food Channel or read Bourdain's books, yet even I've heard of this place. I remember being mildly astonished at not finding it here when checking out the New York restaurants list a few weeks back. Burp. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources amongst the 352 hits in the Google News Archive, including reviews and non-reviews, both types of article counting towards notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2008 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Sweets

Dutch Sweets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability of this company not established. No third party references. Borders on WP:SPAM. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: No evidence in the form of third-party reference sources indicating that this is a notable business. --DAJF (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm Dutch myself and have come across this web site a couple of times to check prices etc... but it fails WP:WEB and notability guildlines. --Pmedema (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I concur. The company does not appear to meet WP:WEB and notability. Geoff (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2008 (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.

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. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Devil's eye

Devil's eye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no evidence for notability of these drinks, no evidence for their existence or a connection with Jonathan Ronai who claims to have taken the photographs. dougweller (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable drink, or Merge here if at least one source can be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. No sources outside of Wikipedia include any reference to this drink. The WP references all appear as though they were added by one editor (or a small group). There is one Zoominfo (apparently self-sourced) reference to Johnathan Ronai as a manager of a chain coffee shop in Tel Aviv, Isreal here: [[1]]. None of the WP references to this drink (or its variations) have outside references. Geoff (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2008 (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.

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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion, that is. Merging or cleaning up the articles about the drink and/or the powder (which do appear to be different things altogether) may be necessary, but may be accomplished outside of AfD.  Sandstein  19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sherbet (powder)

Sherbet (powder) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this really food? No sources were given. Alexius08 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• The article is (the beginning of) a translation from dewiki. I've added one source. --Obersachse (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Why start a whole new article when we already have Sherbet, which according to its ingredients section is discussing this very thing? Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and close Improper nomination with no reason for deletion given. --neon white talk 17:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note that the Sherbet article already covers this topic.--Michig (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Sherbet. Doesn't really "stand up" on its own as an article. Proxy User (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - Merge with Sherbet, as that page covers this topic. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  The Sherbet article is about a traditional turkish cold drink "prepared with rose hips, cornelian cherries, rose or licorice and a variety of spices." This article is about the sherbet or soda powder. Compare the interwikis, please. --Obersachse (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The first section of Sherbet is about the drink. Most of the article is about the powder.--Michig (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Then let's split the article. One about the traditional drink, the other one about the powder. That way the interwikis became correct. It's very strange, when a article about the powder in one language links to an article about a traditional drink in another language. And vice versa. --Obersachse (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the best approach as the drink and the powder don't seem to be related, so I think this should be a Keep, although which of the two articles belongs at Sherbet, I'm not sure. Most of the content in Sherbet is about the powder, so I would be inclined to leave that there and move the content about the drink to Sherbet (drink) or Sherbet (beverage).--Michig (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest it should be renamed Sherbet powder rather than having an unecessary disambiguation term. --neon white talk 21:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Splitting the sherbet article and keeping two articles seems the most reasonable choice, assuming that both subjects are considered notable. The traditional Turkish drink and the fizzy powder do not appear to be closely related except by name and should not be treated in the same article. --Itub (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - Doesn't need it's own article. Can fit quite nicely in the Sherbet article. The muffin is not subtle (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  And what about the interwikis? Should they led to the powder or the turkish drink? --Obersachse (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  I'll explain. Sherbet (powder) links to de:Brausepulver. Both of them are about the powder, and only. Sherbet links e.g. to ru:Шербет or bs:Šerbe. They are about the turkish drink, not a single word about the powder. Is this clear enough, to see, that merging the articles will lead to interwikiconflicts? --Obersachse (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Fix and/or rename both articles. Sherbet powder has nothing to do with a Turkish rose petal drink. Most of the current content of Sherbet describes sherbet powder. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (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.

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, or more precisely don't delete. As always, editors can discuss merging or redirecting on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiser's Small Batch

Wiser's Small Batch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication why this is notable. I can't find any references in reliable sources that this whisky is any more notable than thousands of others.

Merge has been suggested, but frankly, the article suggested (Wiser's Reserve is at least as equal a candidate for deletion. --Ged UK (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Notability isn't a relative contest, it's an absolute. If something has the requisite coverage for Notability, it doesn't matter if it's unique or one of thousands of like items. Article now has two RS references, one for a review of the product, one for a specific batch for a commemorative version, covered by CBC. That it's not really a very special whisky doesn't make it non-notable, IMO. PS I'm the one wanting the merge. MadScot (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability isn't established by providing $x number of sources either, but by the strength of the sources. That said, many of us think that two strong sources is a good tipping point. In this case, the sources are a bit weak. So I fixed it a bit. The one cite that I just added should be strong enough to establish notability, as it shows they won International Review of Spirits Award: Gold Medal, and were reviewed by Tastings and given a 92 (exceptional) rating. Keep based on this new information. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Notable. Certainly a case to be made for a combined article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that there's much need for separate articles about each individual brand of whisky that this distillery makes, but I'm willing to bet that an article about the distillery itself, with individual products redirected to it, would be perfectly valid and more easily sourceable. Merge and redirect. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Spring Tavern

Cold Spring Tavern (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails notability requirements per WP:Corp and WP:Notability (restaurants). Most online mentions of it are incidental ("we stopped there for lunch") or not directly related ("brush fires came close to Cold Spring Tavern") --Kickstart70TC 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep When I first looked at this one, I agreed but I did some searching and I found enough citations from the first page of a google search to establish notability. It was a stagecoach stop, it has been reviewed by LA Times and others. It has received enough press to quality, likely from their unusual menu and history. The history alone probably qualifies as notable since it is already sourced. I will likely add a few more citations, since they aren't that hard to find. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and kudos to Dennis for adding those sources. The LA Times link alone is enough to establish notability. --Mgm|^(talk) 00:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Since newspaper reviews tend to be somewhat exhaustive rather than selective, they probably should not be included in the criteria for notability. Please take a look at the proposed guideline above. --Kickstart70TC 02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but in this case, there is more to the place than good food. The history and "unusual menu" add to it. How many restaurants serve bear and have served lion? There are other sources out there. A look at Google books brings up some interesting hits, 51 of them. The first page would probably suffice as passing the criteria in wp:n. Again, at first I was skeptical, but this is really one very notable place. If anything, we are not doing it justice, and we would use someone familiar with it to expand it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough...notability can definitely be established through other methods. Restaurant reviews are a horrible indicator of notability however, and unfortunately they are brought forward in restaurant Afds to support claims of notability without providing any other reliable source. Please help with the proposed guideline if you have more input. Thanks! --Kickstart70TC 02:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw this and figured it would be an easy to delete, but now it actually sounds like some place I would want to visit. Besides, now we have improved it somewhat, so it is better from the AFD. Hopefully someone will do more. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'm very hesitant to vote in accordance with Dennis, but I see no alternative in this case. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know Dennis, but I have no hesitation voting to keep, based on his reported research. The place is notable. Geoff (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  ChildofMidnight loves me, he is just jealous of how right I am sometimes ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2008 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albert's Family Restaurant

Albert's Family Restaurant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable restaurant chain (per WP:CORP and WP:Notability (restaurants) proposed guideline). Please note that this page is about a chain mostly specific to Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and other chains and individual restaurants share this name. This may muddy the waters when hunting for reliable sources for references. --Kickstart70TC 07:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unless the article can be vastly expanded and sourced, nothing suggests this meets WP:N. The article reads more like a brief advert for the restaurant and the only reference is to the official website. Geoff (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. freshacconci talktalk 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete should be a speedy and I've nominated it as such. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I do not believe it qualifies as G11, it is not advertising, just not notable. There are a few mentions in GoogleNews but I don't see anything promising to make a WP:V, WP:NPOV article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:14, 17 November 2008 (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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arnolds

Arnolds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable restaurant per WP:CORP and WP:Notability (restaurants). Incidental mentions on the web, nothing substantial in GNews or GScholar. --Kickstart70TC 07:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I added some references to the article. Does anyone speak better Finnish to help find some more media references to Arnolds? If what is listed on the company's news page can be verified, then it will meet the notability requirements.  LinguistAtLarge  10:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your references are 1) that a music band happened to be there, and 2) a directory listing of an address of a location. Neither prove notability. Please check WP:CORP and WP:REST for what can confer notability. --Kickstart70TC 17:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. While I think there are still problems with proper sourcing, I think you misread the article about the band. EMI has a distribution deal with Arnolds to exclusively distribute the band's single.  LinguistAtLarge  19:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be telling in this case that the band in question also does not have a page here. --Kickstart70TC 02:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Keep - Meets notability guidelines...asserts that notability in the intro paragraph _David^WS _(contribs) 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

An assertion of notability does not prove notability. Please check WP:CORP and WP:REST for what can confer notability. --Kickstart70TC 17:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, I meant that as two seperate things. One: it asserts, Two: it passes. _David