Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cook Door (2nd nomination)


 * 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. John254 05:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cook Door
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

2nd nomination. Still fails WP:CORP and WP:REST. Kickstart70 T C 06:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The referenced article talks about them in some detail. I think notability is established sufficiently, although more references would be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reference in the article explains that this is a major chain in Egypt. There are some more sources available in English from a |+Egypt) Google News Archive search, and I'm sure that there must be loads more sources in Arabic. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Every one of those 7 mentions is trivial and done in passing. Please re-read WP:CORP and see if this truly qualifies. -- Kickstart70 T C 07:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The very first of those Gnews hits is completely about Cook Door, as is this one - how can you say the mentions are "trivial and in passing"? Also remember that we are talking about a country which doesn't use the Latin alphabet for its native language, so searching in that alphabet can only be expected to come up with a tiny percentage of all of the potential sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, simply, reviews of local restaurants by one writer expressing his personal favourites are trivial mentions. Again, look at WP:CORP and see if this would qualify if it weren't a restaurant. Further, if those non-English reliable sources exist, then they need to be provided. We can't just assume they exist and go from there. It's "proof of notability" not "assumption of notability". -- Kickstart70 T C 20:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These reviews are in Al-Ahram, a national newspaper, so can't be called "reviews of local restaurants", and yes, articles of this length in major newspapers are accepted as showing notability for articles on all sorts of topics. Why do you persist in trying to impose higher notability standards on restaurants than we have for any other subjects? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I most certainly am not. I'm just trying to impose the standards that are set very clearly in an accepted guideline. I'm really not certain why people are having a problem with this. Is the guideline wrong? -- Kickstart70 T C 04:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.