Talk:FLIP Burger Boutique/Archive 1

Contested deletion
I fail to see how this article should be deleted. As far as saying that "an individual restaurant is not per se notable enough to include in an encyclopedia", I would disagree with your opinion in this case. There are a lot of reliable sources that cover of its conception, how the food is prepared, etc. This is a nationally-renowned restaurant, and as such, it warrants an article. As far as being written like an advertisements, all I can do is make a few edits in the language. —DAP388 (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, DAP388, I agree that the quantity of references means that the article asserts notability, however it may be referred to AfD for a deletion discussion if the references don't bear this out. I do think it's written like an advertisement and should be edited to remove anything remotely promotional. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are five major problems: 1) restaurant reviews and certainly press releases do not establish notability, however I will give you the WP and WSJ articles as establishing that; 2) some of the sources are not major e.g. Delta Sky magazine and Go - the choice of these should be pared down. 3) so many of the reviews are quoted with the quotes not providing any substance, e.g. ""The burgers draw long lines at all hours, as much for the meat as for sides like sweet potato tater tots" etc. etc. is just rattling off a list of the popular menu items. It doesn't add anything to the understanding of why Flip is important - if it's about the menu, then it should be in the menu section 4) finally, the language used is not that of an encyclopedia but that of a press release, e.g. a critic "affirmed" "articulated" or had "synonymous sentiments". 5) the long quotes about the french fries - inappropriate. If there is an innovative technique to describe, then you can do that but you can't just quote the owner/chef waxing poetic about it - this isn't an interview it's an encyclopedia.
 * I don't really accept DAP388's comment that "all he/she can do is make a few edits", as he/she did *write* the article. I don't mean to be overly critical or jump all over the author, but as it is the article is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia both in content and tone. I would be glad to give it a go at editing but would likely have to remove so much of the content, I would like to give the author a chance as well. The writing is (for its style) extremely polished so I am guessing that the author might be able to write in a neutral, encyclopedic style as well. Keizers (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made some substantial edits to remove fluff and make this article more palatable. Please someone inform me if it gets bad again, or I'll sic Ray's Hell Burger on em.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)