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. The delete opinions don't give a basis for determining that this WP:ORG as not "notable", which per policy does not mean "important". WP:ORG is a long way behind WP:MUSIC in clarity over cases like this (with "Depth of coverage" being little more than the GNG), but articles like this one (which passes everything in WP:ORG/WP:GNG with flying colours) are not a good place to try to refine policy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teaneck Kebab House[edit]

Teaneck Kebab House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Just a kebab house like a hundred thousands others Complainer (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Close It's sourced, it's notable per this: "The restaurant has received favorable reviews, in publications including The New York Times, The Record, and New Jersey Monthly." and it's even a WP:DYK on the Main Page. Minimac (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Usually I don't advocate keeping an article on the grounds that the topic earned just one lucky break with the media, but this restaurant has had two such breaks so far (not counting the survey results, which count as trivial), one with the New York Times, and one with The Record. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources.Starzynka (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's just a resataurant. Just because it received good reviews does not make it encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.226.38 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - since restaurants have been popping up and instead of arguing about the fact that it is "well referenced for its cuisine", we can simply have a sub-rule regarding this case, which I will suggest:

"A restaurant may be notable if it is independently sourced for something other than the fact that it's a restaurant that got good reviews." - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - by Theornamentalist's sub-rule, the restaurant is independently sourced for the flight of the owner from Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets in 1985. I have no independent source to cite, but I know of a pizzeria owned by a Pashtun who fled Kabul on the last plane out in 1979 as the Soviets invaded, and his parents, who stayed behind, were executed. I'm not sure that makes his restaurant notable, but I'll give the nod to Teaneck Kebab House because its Wednesday (where I am today). Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blasphemy! My own rule used against me! Ha I meant something like if an owner is notable, notable regulars, historical significance, if something notable happened there (maybe even one time event as the host article), extraordinarily remarkable (like serving extremely exotic or unique food which no other, at least regionally, restaurants serve which is well sourced and noted just for that). Besides, I bet there are a ton of restaurants with interesting history, but that does not denote notability. I agree with Complainer's assessment btw - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I worked at a restaurant as a cook for 8 years that was featured every year by the local news (nj12) and the owner has gotten a ton of good reviews for it simply because he has connections and wanted the exposure. It is utterly unremarkable and does not belong in an encyclopedia, but if this is a trend, maybe I will someday write a fluffy article about the hardships he faced climbing up the ladder, sacrificing whatever it was he did. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well sourced, meets WP:NOTE. ffm is now LFaraone 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NYT has to write restaurant reviews, and might include some background on the owner for local colour, but this doesn't make every restaurant it chooses notable. As a side note, here in Europe, where that kind of restaurant is rife, I'd say 60% of them are run by political refugees.Complainer (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - The above user is the nominator. Jeni ^(talk) 09:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to me like a violation of Wikipedia:Spam.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has reliable sources. A valid article. Techman224^Talk 21:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the strong precedent of Mzoli's. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the two can be compared: Mzoli is almost a controversial (though local) social phenomenon, this is just a damn kebab house Complainer (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a bunch of local restaurant reviews does not make a restaurant notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've opened a discussion here regarding restaurant notability in general, and I suggest any arguments for notability not specifically about this restaurant go over there. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:MILL. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• That's an essay and so doesn't even constitute a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a very reasonable essay, however. And, should one go nitpicking on AfD policies, this is a WP:ONLYESSAY among a good half dozen WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Complainer (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Schmucky failed to provided a "suitable explanation of why it applies". As for lots of sources, the sources supplied are not trivial or unreliable.

• Explaining why WP:MILL applies to a kebab house would be insulting the intelligence of the editors. As for explaining why restaurant reviews are a trivial source for restaurants...uh, ditto. Complainer (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establsih notability. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability is established through its sources. Jeni ^(talk) 09:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just because the New York Times (for instance) reviews something doesn't make it notable. They can't review only famous restaurants because they'd quickly run out, so they need something to fill their pages. Doesn't go beyond getting one-time good restaurant reviews. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Our topics are not required to be famous. Our notability guideline spells this out by saying, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity...". What we look for is that topics "have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources." That's what we have in this case. Your view that fame is required is personal one, not supported by any policy or guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not even remotely what I said; don't misrepresent my argument. What I actually said was that getting one isolated review from a source like the New York Times doesn't make something inherently notable. When you put the "famous restaurants" comment in context, it means that the Times will not only review famous and notable (note; two separate terms- notable ≠ famous) establishments, they will also review minor, less significant ones because they have to put something in their dining section. With one review from the Times, and a couple other newspapers in the area, that's a few sources; not enough to establish "significant coverage". Almost every place in New York has been reviewed by multiple sources; reviews don't say much beyond the food itself and a little bit about the atmosphere, and are not enough to give a comprehensive description. They don't establish notability because they're just ordinary, run-of-the-mill statements about (frequently, as in this example) run-of-the-mill establishments. This is not the same as a whole article, which is a different matter that doesn't seem to apply here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources here are high-quality and offer fairly significant coverage, which is just enough under WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE, and has received coverage in multiple independent and reliable WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kebab house. "Qurbanzada... decorated the establishment with rugs... from [Afghanistan]." "...Qurbanzada decorated the restaurant with carpets from Afghanistan." "The Kebab House is a comfortable room whose walls are decorated with... rugs..." Here's my question: are there rugs on the walls? My point is: there isn't much to say about this former pizza joint so we're pretty much reduced to 1) it serves food, and 2) there are rugs on the walls. We are fortunately spared a description of the color of the restroom signs, although if the article is expanded I suppose we'll have to go into that. Restaurantcruft. Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Trivial as the restaurant is, it has enough sources to pass the general notability guideline. Yes, we can delete pages about notable subjects, but I don't see any significant reasons so to do. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article passes general notability, so it qualifies as notable. I do acknowledge that somewhere down the line this might be a problem to look at but I don't think an AfD is the right place to change policy. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And now, at the dawn of having wikipedia discredited and ridiculed by showing in its main page, on the DYK, a kebab house in Albany with such fundamental informations as the fact that it offers complementary salads and that it has rugs on the walls, I just have one question: what about wikipedia:Use_common_sense and wikipedia:ignore_all_rules? If there was a case in which one ought to look at an article and say "Damn it, never ever would I look for my local kebab house in an encyclopedia, papery or not", instead of invoking the "general notability guidelines", this was it. I'm sure Encarta is grateful. Complainer (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Encarta is dead while Wikipedia is doing just fine, adding a thousand articles a day. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing just fine as a minor restaurant guide, apparently. And to think that, adding only 999 would have spared the sight of something as pathetically useless as the Teanek article. Oh well, I hope fundamental expansions to this voice are incoming. Isn't there some Afghan crockery we've forgotten to mention? And do we have enough detail about the owner's cousins? What about a complete menu? Any Thursday lunch specials? Complainer (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot depends on the nature of the "...unusual food-serving implements". If this means that, instead of a fork, spoon, and knife, you get a rusty Delco sparkplug for a '57 Impala, the severed head of a rabid weasel, and a miniature statuette of Patti Lupone with which to eat your meal, that would make it notable, would it not? But the article doesn't say, so my !vote stands. Perhaps we should have some templates like this:

Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something along the lines of WP:GARAGE- maybe WP:No one cares about your local restaurant. Signs of it being a local restaurant would include things like "the walls were recently repainted to a darker purple" (as if anyone would truly care) or "Has been featured on News Channel 12" (without mentioning that it was actually covered on the New Haven County channel at 1:30 in the morning). I am totally posting that box somewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:05, 24 August 2010 (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.