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 Concensus to delete. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hat[edit]

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

PROD Deletion contested at DRV and restored. But the reasons for the PROD deletion still stand. The only source is the company web-site. So without independant sourcing, there's no evidence that this passed WP:CORP. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Company is notable, it passes the google test with 65,300 ghits. It has citations from credible newspapers, and other sources. --evrik ^(talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To start, 65,000+ Ghits does not necessarily prove notability. Most of the hits are blogs/directory type hits. I did the same search in News and received significantly fewer hits, not that that in itself necessarily disproves notability, I'll admit. Without reliable sourcing though, I still say delete. The information is probably more suitable for Wikitravel. Keeper | 76 18:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found quite a few independent sources with little difficulty, but then again that didn't surprise me since this is definitely iconic, it has a reputation far beyond LA (as an aside,I seem to recall seeing a segment about The Hat on Food Tv or Travel Channel). I think this is just a forgotten stub about a quite famous eatery, hopefully someone will flesh it out a bit.Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share any of these "independent sources" that were so easy to find? I found, also with "little difficulty", a multitude of blog posts, which are not reliable sources but merely opinions. I would be happy to change my position in this discussion with reliable sources. Again, it needs to cite sources that establish notability, not that merely state that it exists, or that so and so likes eating there and thinks its iconic. Keeper | 76 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please document the policy that syas that blog posts can't be counted as reliable sources, or is this your opinion? --evrik ^(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "policy", but a general summary of how the project views weblogs can be found here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TexasAndroid, I just found that reference and came here to post it, you beat me to it! Keeper | 76 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note below, there are a number of newspaper articles that can be cited. When I get a chance i will add them in. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, my position of delete is getting weaker (but it's still delete) per additions made to the article by evrik. However, all but the first reference (LA times)(sorry, LA Daily News) are not reliable. Chubbypanda: blog for a food critic - by definitioin , opinion. Temple City Chamber of Commerce: reads like a promo, which it is (trust me, my company has been "written up" by a CoC newsletter - it's all adspeak. Not reliable) Campuscircle. Non notable source, mostly paid ads. Manta - business profile, however - it has a wiki portion. I was able to go in and change the business profile with a username. I know nothing about the Hat, but I was able to update info. (don't worry, I didn't save anything). The last two are blogspots. The only ref that's decent is the first (LA timesLA Daily News), but really it isn't much more than a press release with a brief bio of the origins. I like it as a source, but the article still needs more to establish notability. Keeper | 76 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article now appears to be well-sourced, which shows that it is a notable topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which of the blog posts and chamber of commerce advertisements do you believe make this well sourced? Yes, "the Hat" exists, and people like eating there. (Personally, I love pastrami.) However, that doesn't make it notable by Wikipedia standards. Still need sources to prove, reliably, that it is worthy of this project, as opposed to Wikitravel or my/you/space/tube. Keeper | 76 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that since the accusatory (or perhaps just snarky) challenge to show sources, they have been revealed. Granted newspaper sources in this case are either reviews or business items about the chain. Reviews are indeed just opinions...about the food. Reviews also give context to the restaurant beyond how tasty the food is (or isn't). Reviews speak to The Hat being more than just a burger joint, but indeed part of the landscape of LA. I know that in this missionary zeal to delete (or "obliterate") its easy to dismiss reviews, or Ghits as having no weight, but I think thats a mistake (WP in fact allows for editors to think outside of the box). We should try to see the context of 35000 ghits and dozens of reviews, that there might be something there. The fact that the orignal editors did not cite this properly does not mean it can't be done. Jacksinterweb (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blogs and Flickr as references? No way. Sounds delicious, but fails notability. Jmlk17 04:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jmlk17! Sounds great but isn't wikiable!---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jmlk17: ((flickr-inline)) is an external link and not a reference. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears notable and sourceable. In general, popular 10-outlet chain restaurants that are expanding aggressively usually turn out to fit notability guidelines - you just have to look for the articles. There's some significant independent coverage from reliable sources somewhere in this list [1] - Orange County Register and a few others have stories about them as opposed to just restaurant reviews.Wikidemo (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the article says," locally iconic". That's not enough for notability. small restaurant chain. If LA has a local-interest wikia, that would be the place for this article. DGG (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then, by that standard we should AfD Carnegie Deli? The article is referenced in Cuisine of California. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to make your case. The Hat may very well be notable, it may not be, that's what we're here to decide. I'm sorry if some of the editors think I'm coming off "snarky", it's truly not my intent. Articles require sources though. Full stop. The proof of notability is its appearance in established, independent, reliable (read: fact-checked) sources. Not blogs, not food critc reviews (they review every restaurant eventually, its called finding work and getting paid to eat your food.) Being reviewde by someone that is paid to go eat at a restaurant doesn't make every restaurant notable beyond Wikitravel entries. We are not here to compare its article to other articles that could just as easily be nominated for AfD and maybe just haven't yet. Keep improving the article, Evrik (and others), its looking much better. But calling another editor's opinions "accustory" (Jacksinterweb), is just, well, accusatory. Keeper | 76 15:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... When I said, "So then, by that standard we should AfD Carnegie Deli?" I was posing a rhetorical question in response to DGG's comment, "locally iconic. That's not enough for notability." I don't think that the size of the chain has any impact on notability, and using that as a reason to say it should be deleted is not valid. --evrik ^(talk) 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the size of the chain - a long chain of restaurants doesn't make you automatically notable, nor does being a single storefront (mom&pop or otherwise) make you nonnotable. The key is in the sourcing. Thank you for clarifying your rhetorical question (that I obviously took too literally.) Sorry about the "WP:____" spam. I've looked through the sources that have been added recently (I believe mostly by evrik) and hope the trend continues to make this a quality article, if it in fact stays. Keeper | 76 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a few more references, and an image. With more time, I thik the article copuld grow in terms of its history and its relationship to SoCal culture. To red some of the refernces, you may need a subscripiton to a news service. --evrik ^(talk) 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have room for "locally iconic" restaurants as long as we have multiple sources to prove that they're iconic. I think the current refs are sufficient. Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced and is notable in the San Gabriel Valley area. It is the flagship restaurant of a well-known regional franchise. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a good article for a chain local to millions of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenFrantzDale (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 November 2007 (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.