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. There is a lack of consensus to delete, therefore, default to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Linkery[edit]

The Linkery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Appears to be non-notable. Smashville^talk 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I am this article's primary author) - Why does this article not appear notable? It has a verifiable, reliable 3rd-party source that address the subject directly in detail. If anything, the article lacks substance as it currently written, but isn't this to be expected from a stub? I fully intend to add more content to this article when I have the time, but until then, how can its notability be questioned? I am aware that substantive coverage presumes notability but does not guarantee notability; I do not think this article qualifies WP:NOT. --Beefyt (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, there are no non-trivial sources and no assertion of notability. --Smashville^talk 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you consider 3124 words in the New York Times Magazine trivial? Of course there is no "assertion of notability", that would be original research. --Beefyt (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That article is not about The Linkery. It is about tipping and it uses the restaurant to frame its subject/argument. And asserting notability is not original research. Every article on Wikipedia is required to have an assertion of notability. --Smashville^talk 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I understand your point now, my mistake. If by assertion of notability, you mean that the article should establish that the topic is remarkable in some way, I have attempted to do that with the addition of mentions of The Linkery in several top-100 lists.--Beefyt (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bingo. I guess we'll just have to disagree over the interpretation of the source, though... --Smashville^talk 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are sure a LOT of negative reviews about this place. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Restaurants with only one location usually don't meet the criteria for notability as businesses. There are no references to provide evidence that the restaurant is notable from a culinary point of view, such as being listed in Restaurant (magazine) Top 50. There are no references to provide evidence that the restaurant is notable for its physical location, such as Windows on the World or Machus Red Fox. There are no references to provide evidence that the restaurant is notable as a tourist attraction or cultural institution, such as Café du Monde. So, just why is this restaurant considered notable? Dr.frog (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this restaurant need to be notable based on one of your point of views? Its notability is demonstrated by satisfying the notability criterion. Just because we don't have other articles like this doesn't mean this one should be deleted. --Beefyt (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep The coverage in the Times makes this reasonable as a keep. But I'd say only about half or a third of the article is about the restaurant. Do we have any second reliable source other than the Times article? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Changing to full keep The additional sources now added to the article push it up to meet notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this is notable enough to merit an article, it shouldn't be limited to just two short sentences. Peter ^Isotalo 14:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I've expanded on the article a bit more now, but there is still a lot of information that I would like to add. For instance, the Linkery is unique in that they employ a blog and newsletter as marketing tools to engage their customers. This may not be notable for a business in general, but for a restaurant its remarkable. I am now attempting to find more sources before proceeding. --Beefyt (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find no evidence that this organization meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for commercial enterprises. Granted, they exist and have been written up in a few reviews. They were also mentioned in passing in articles which were primarily about other topics. As restaurants go, that's trivial coverage.
  The mentions in those "top 100" lists is equally unpersuasive. If you parse the list's starting parameters far enough, everyone can become number one at something. That's not a useful basis for determining notability. Those lists were too specialized to provide more than supporting evidence. Rossami (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardly think its fair to dismiss the NYT article as a passing mention. Of the 35 paragraphs, 22 specifically mention The Linkery, its staff, or its policies. I grant that the article doesn't discuss the food or other traditional aspects of maintaining a restaurant. That's exactly what makes this article and this restaurant so remarkable and notable. Their policies are so notable that the NYT devoted 1800 words of a 3000-word article to it. The article is about The Linkery so much as it about tipping or not tipping. --Beefyt (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming that you are talking about this article, I disagree with your interpretation of it. The topic of the article is about the social construct and economic behavior of tipping. The article uses this one institution as an example throughout but only as an example. Being a well-written article, the author picked one clear example and stuck with it - he humanized the concept quite well. But that doesn't change the fact that this article is not primarily about the restaurant, it's about tipping. Under the accepted usage of the rules at WP:CORP, I consider that a passing mention. It proves that the entity exists but little more. It is certainly not sufficient to support a full encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see anything in WP:CORP about "passing mention" specifically. Do you mean to say that the subject of the NYT article is not the Linkery? Or that its inclusion is trivial? Or incidental? What kind of criteria are you using to make this judgement? --Beefyt (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't clear to me how using it as an example is that relevant. If we had a 500 page book about the history of tipping and it has this much content on the Linkery as an example that would still be a reliable source with non-trivial content. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2008 (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.