Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Dog Cafe

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Dog Cafe

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

and DELETE REDIRECTS at The White Dog Cafe and White Dog Café

3 location local business, created and only edited by Neelix, likely so he could blue link this sentence "Ben Cohen of the ice cream company Ben & Jerry's met with Claiborne at Philadelphia's White Dog Cafe" from an article about one of his favorite books Jesus for President. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is symptomatic of all of Neelix's article creations. They are either POV advocacy (of often questionable notability), or they were created to be blue-links within those articles (with dubious notability) apparently in order for the main article to look good and notable itself and/or for the main article to be impressive enough at first sight to pass GA/FA without much investigation. In the end it comes down to the fact that every article Neelix ever created is probably going to have to be looked at, in my opinion, and gone over with a fine-tooth comb. I've dealt with a similar editor here on Wikipedia (now retired), and that was exhausting enough, but the scale at which Neelix has been doing this all of these years simply boggles the mind. This article very well may meet notability, but the dubious genesis is disturbing and symptomatic. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like this GA that goes on for 50,000 bytes on a 32 page illustrated kids book Lucky and Squash - compare to the treatment the author gives it here [1] Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: Another problem with Neelix, somewhat similar to his unwarranted mass redirects, are his unwarranted mass categories in the articles he creates. I had to remove 5 of the 9 categories on this article because they didn't apply. And beyond that the article contained at least three false claims not supported by the citations. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now I suppose unless better improvement can made. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this could have been speedied: what possible claim to notability exists here? The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unreliable sources. When there are sources, but they are probably unreliable, I think an afd discussion is fairer. Somebody might possibly find better . The speedy was earlier declined for just that reason. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: There appear to be plenty of available RS sources; they simply were not used when Neelix created this slapdash article. Also, when you !voted Legacypac had deleted the most important part of the article without cause. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

which part? That the previous owner was a panelist at a University in Denvor after she sold the place (which might do something for an article on her but not the cafe) or that they ran a special for 10 days last year [2] like no restaurant has ever offered a special price of $35 on a meal? Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's actually buckets of sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

buckets of trivia, it seems to me, like the sentence on restrooms , as mentioned as just part of a general nyt article. Or local business journals, thoroly undiscriminating in publishing pr for local institutions. Or that the founder gave a talk at a university. Or the restaurant's PR for its presence at local environmental events. If there are better, please add them and remove this sort of sourcing, which is of course typical of promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Have you even made an effort to check Google or GoogleBooks? You don't even have to type the search -- just click the links at the top. AfDs are decided on notability, not on the state an article is currently in. Softlavender (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see they published 2 cookbooks, and a good many minor mentions. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* There are plenty of full articles, including HuffPo. Apparently I am going to have to collect links and post them here since no one else can be bothered, even though this is an AfD and that's how we judge GNG. Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are buckets of sources limited to the Philadelphia area, and a passing mention from one in New York (which is not very far away); writeups of regional interest. Some writeups in books (including its own published cookbooks) but passing mentions or directory listings again. Quite a bit of buzz around its former owner making public appearances, which doesn't confer notability on her restaurant. We need more. That said, there is depth of coverage within the limited coverage area, so this is a weak !vote, but tagging this for A7 deletion was clearly incorrect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neelix created a crap article but that doesn't mean the subject lacks notability, which it clearly has. Dozens if not hundreds of instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so easily passes GNG and any other relevant guideline. Here are just a few: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. That's just for starters. There's lots more, but I don't have time to do an in-depth search. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: Paging SwisterTwister, The Drover's Wife, DGG, and Ivanvector to examine these sources. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Softlavender's sources, which make this one pretty overwhelmingly clear — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH, having received significant coverage in national-level reliable news sources: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. There is also some coverage in books: ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Associated Press
^ CNN
^ The New York Times
^ Yes! magazine
^ U.S. News and World Report (subscription required)
^ Programming for Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services. pp. 68-69. (subscription required)

Keep, as noted, there are plenty of sources that give non-trivial coverage to the subject, establishing notability. Harrias ^talk 17:45, 19 November 2015 (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.

[1] Associated Press

[2] CNN

[3] The New York Times

[4] Yes! magazine

[5] U.S. News and World Report (subscription required)

[6] Programming for Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services. pp. 68-69. (subscription required)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]