Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dixie Chicken (bar) (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    No Consensus to delete. The concerns about sourcing are real, but even when properly weighted I don't see a consensus to delete. WP:N is guideline which must be applied "with common sense and the occasional exception," and I can see no consensus below to apply it strictly. Further discussion might result in a clear consensus but I feel that that is most likely after sufficient time has been given to see if more sources emerge, or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dixie Chicken (bar)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable local bar. DRV allowed new version to stand for new review, but still completely unnotable. The ring dunking section is overly inflated, and an A&M tradition that can occur anywhere, it isn't unique to this bar. Tradition itself is already covered elsewhere. This bar itself has not had significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Out of the 19 sources in the article, 10 are all local papers: the local newspaper, a local TV channel, and the university newspaper. Of the remaining sources, 2-4 are directory type works that mention the bar in passing as part of promo-type blurbs for A&M university. Five is another trivial passing of someone's blog-type report of their trip through A&M. The Playboy "award" alone does not establish any actual notability, nor does Bush's minor mention in passing. 8 is another trivial mention. 10 is a piece by a guy from College Station talking about his pending return trip there. 15 is another directory listing, and again mentions the bar in passing.

Entire article is full of nothing but local trivia, with no actual claim of notability for the bar beyond what it iself claims and the minor Playboy award. Was deleted in an [|AfD that concluded on 28 January 2009], and immediately recreated by an editor who works extensively with A&M articles. The recreation was allowed to stay in a DRV despite deletion being endorse, without prejudice to be renominated again. Again, this bar completely fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Local sources are not "reliable, independent secondary sources", directory listings are not significant coverage, nor are passing mentions are not significant coverage. Per the company notability guidelines: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." This has not been established here. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DRV allowed you to recreate it, it does not protect it from renomination (as you yourself agreed on the article talk page), nor did the DRV say anywhere that this version was notable. Indeed, the deletion of the original was endorsed. The only thing the DRV endorsed was that this version of the article was sufficiently different to be reevaluated on its own. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   —Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Establishment is clearly notable amongst locals and people acquainted with College Station. Obviously CNN isn't covering the joint, but it's a viable search term that real people would look for, and the article itself is a reasonably well-developed work in progress. Townlake (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Local notability is irrelevant. If all notability required was a few local people to be acquinted with something, we might as well have articles on every last business every formed anywhere and tons of local "celebrities" because, hey, their local paper covered them! Except, that isn't how Wikipedia works and this is NOT the College Station Wikipedia (despite the efforts of various A&M editors), it is the English one. As such, notability requires significant coverage in third-party sources, not just local papers. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CSB is all about protecting "local notability"... whether it the Phillipines or Texas. Local reliable sources covering a local landmark are eminently suitable. Not everything in Wikipedia made headlines in New York Times or Washington Post. The article is not about every last business ever formed, or even about one which had a "mention" in a small town paper... it's about one that has an incredible amount of coverage. This argument should not be about the author, his interests in Texas A&M, or College Station. Its about the quite well covered Dixie Bar.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article in Playboy Magazine, of which the Dixie Chicken is the subject, is a reliable source and verifies its notability. In addition, comments on the subject by; Austin American-Statesman, Yale Daily News, ESPN, U.S. News & World Report and many other reliable sources have also verified this notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions, again, do not estbalish notability, nor does ONE single relatively minor article on the Playboy website. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your opinion of Playboy Magazine, and the many other notable reliable sources listed, these are notable and reliable sources. If you have sources that state otherwise, please add them to the discussion. The article is clearly notable and well sourced - If there is any evidence otherwise you should share it. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No one said the sources are not reliable, but that does NOT mean they can establish notability when the bulk of them are local (and in this case, considering Austin is a neighboring town, it is still relatively local/regional. The article is NOT clearly notable, not matter how many local sources you stick on it. Nor are the sources all notable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is clear. As stated above, the article in Playboy Magazine, of which the Dixie Chicken is the subject, is a reliable source and verifies its notability. In addition, comments on the subject by; Austin American-Statesman, Yale Daily News, ESPN, U.S. News & World Report and many other reliable sources have also verified this notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec'd) You and I simply view the current sources as providing different levels of confidence in the establishment's notability. I'll look forward to seeing what others say.  Townlake (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if President Bush has mentioned it in a speech, that is probably good enough along with the other articles to establish notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. I would agree that the guidelines in place on notability are sometimes to generous but I think most bars would have a hard time putting together the kind of resume for notability that this one has. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list of non-local sources indicates notability. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 19 sources, many nonlocal. Mentioned by the ex president. This is too easy. AfD hero (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep Improved article per notability asserted and repeatedly shown. Even Texas can have a few notable things... though I'm half expecting to see The Alamo at AfD next.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Texas has tons of notable things. This small town bar is not one of them. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Multiple sources have shown the Dixie Chicken to be notable. While there is not a featured New York Times article on the Dixie Chicken, this does not take away from this establishment's notability. Clearly, due to multiple reliable sources and clearly stated notability, this article should be kept. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per others. Articles only need to be non-trivial if the references themselves are used to establish notability. Trivial mentions are perfectly acceptable to verify article content. There is more ways to establish notability beyond the WP:GNG. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is established by WP:N, and all a subject guideline can do is establish a grace period on the basis that WP:N will eventually be satisified. This article doesn't even manage that, as it doesn't pass WP:CORP, and the third-party sources are primarily trivial. The Playboy reference is the only non-local source that comes close to being the significant coverage necessary to satisfy WP:N. It is, however, only one source, and it takes multiple sources to pass WP:N.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Along with Playboy Magazine, there are many other notable reliable sources that verify this subject's notabilty. Please see; Texas A&M University Press, KBTX-TV, The Washington Post, Yale Daily News, The Eagle (newspaper), The Battalion, ESPN, Austin American-Statesman, and U.S. News & World Report. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to point to significant coverage in any of those that isn't a local source?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * These are all local sources. They are all in english, and North American. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of sarcasm doesn't improve your argument.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable from the sources. Artw (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many of the provided references are incidental and not substantial; they could happen at any bar anywhere (and probably do), and therefore aren't any substantiation of notability for this establishment. The cited Playboy reference looks notable--but isn't, since it isn't actually an award and is a dubious off-topic notability claim. (That is, if a magazine about bars declared the place the bar of the month, that would be meaningful; Playboy is not an authority on bars.) -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete in the spirit of collectonian, kww, and mikeblas. The sources given aren't sufficient to pass WP:N.  A trivial mention from the president is still a trivial mention.  Local sources aren't enough to justify wide-scale notability.  A monthly award from Playboy magazine is the only thing the bar has going for it, and restaurant reviews are not what playboy is well-known for.  A centerfold model in Playboy is notable because that's what the magazine is known for and that's its specialty, but since Playboy magazine isn't the Michelin Guide, the review can't be used as the sole indicator of notability. Themfromspace (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Playboy (the US edition) does routinely comment on university campus culture and hotspots - while I agree this isn't what the magazine is best known for, the mention is in keeping with what the magazine covers and the audience it talks to (for those who read the articles). Not to over-focus on that one source, and I do agree in no way is the mention an "award". Townlake (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you post these sources? Themfromspace (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For more information, check the references section, Google News and Google Books. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He's posted the list above. He doesn't seem to recognize that, with the exception of Playboy, they either fail to provide significant coverage, or are local to the bar. I'm not sure that badgering him about the list is much more productive than his constant insistence on the notability of the bar. The reasons the sources fail have been pointed out numerous times, and he has pointedly ignored or belittled those arguments.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments have been noted. These are your opinions, you are entiltled to them, but they are not facts. These are Reliable sources and they have clearly estabilshed notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They may be reliable sources, and they do satisfy WP:V, but the argument is over WP:N, which they don't appear to satisfy. Themfromspace (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect your comments but I strongly disagree; these are reliable sources that clearly establish notablity. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please go through them and indicate for each one why you believe that they constitute a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken Bar or are not primarily concerned with news coverage local to the bar? Then at least we'd have something concrete to disagree about.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask you to review these sources. These reliable sources are directly relevant, please review each of them. Also, please note any problem you have with them. These are reliable sources, you need to state why you believe they are not reliable. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When have I ever said they were unreliable? I said they were local (i.e the Austin Statesman, KBTX, the Battalion, the Eagle) or passing mentions (So, as is customary, the crowd then migrates off campus to the back porch of the Dixie Chicken, a popular saloon, for the next step of Ring Day protocol: ring dunking. from US News and World Report, One Friday night, just after the stroke of midnight, the Aggies practiced in a parking lot behind the Dixie Chicken, the students' favorite local watering hole that claims it serves more beer per square foot than any other bar in the U.S.  from ESPN). I'm granting you the Playboy source. Please indicate just one other source that is not local coverage and is a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of these sources are reliable. There reliablity and notability are well estabilished. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got to assume that the reason you won't point out a source that is not local coverage and is a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar is because you can't find one. I didn't ask about reliability. I didn't ask if the sources were notable. I asked you to point out a source, aside from Playboy, that was not local that contained a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar. Since you are able to understand English, my question was straightforward, and it has been explained to you multiple times that no one is questioning the reliability, I have to assume that you are being deliberately evasive. I hope the closing admin takes that into account when evaluating your argument.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:19, 18 February 2009 (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.