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. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant Opportunities Center

[edit]

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

basically promotional DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Great catch. Delete! EDIT: and also WP:CONFLICT DocumentError (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reading WP:NOREASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I thought this nomination was so patently self-evident that WP:RAP would be understood by all GF editors; I have expanded my explanation in view of the contraindication DocumentError (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:ORGDEPTH, and promotional copy and tone can be corrected by copy editing. Source examples include:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is so promotional, that it will be easier to start from scratch and have all this promotion deleted from the edit history. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty--if that's your suggestion, then why don't you first create a new article in a sandbox, and we can deliberate section by section on whether/how it's an improvement of the present article. Once we work out the kinks, we can replace the present article with the new improved version.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with reasoning of NorthAmerica1000. Just the fact that NY restaurant workers form an organization that empowers other restaurant workers to struggle against prevailing industry practices makes it a unique organization. The organization then founds a restaurant on a business model that serves to inspire many other such enterprises across the country, which makes it more noteworthy. It's a leading edge of an under-reported national movement for restaurant worker empowerment and non-exploitation. Then, add in the fact that it was started by survivors of 9/11 who worked at the iconic Windows on the World, and the fact that some politicians seem to be targeting COLORS. --NYCJosh (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix article on notable subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established in the above discussion; AFD is not cleanup. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with prior points, and note that the group has been the subject of a major New York Times piece tied to a subject of great contemporary interest. It is easy enough to add third party discussion of ROC, from various perspectives, while removing material that falls below standard. JimmyBoyHiggins (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)JimmyBoyHiggins[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.