Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli's Cheesecake


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Eli's Cheesecake

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and especially WP:CORP as all coverage is local, except for presumably a trivial mention in a directory. A search turns up more local coverage. No indication of wider fame or notability. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It satisfies WP:CORP and WP:N as a company having worldwide distribution and notability, with significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources from a wide area beyond the local papers. The article is already well enough referenced to demonstrate notability. Google Books has, , , , , , with more than directory listings or passing references, besides a larger number of books with only snippet views available. Google News archive has countless article covering the company behind paywall, along with significant coverage in , , . Edison (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The three news items, two in specialist publications and one in a local newspaper, are not enough for notability. Quoting from WP:CORP: "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." It also excludes "routine restaurant reviews" so review compilations such as You Know You're in Illinois When... do not establish notability.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Since when did "specialist" publications not count? Industry journals and such have long been used to demonstrate notability. And the coverage in the book you mentioned is not a "restaurant review" - it provides an overview of the history of the business. In any case, Eli's Cheesecake has recently been in the news in Ireland, so there's some international coverage for you. Zagal e jo^^^ 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with the relevant bit highlighted: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". So specialist publications do not establish notability.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are quite wrong. Edison (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, thanks, but why?-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:ORG and its talk page archives. Industry or specialized journals have long been accepted as supporting notability. They are not of "limited interest and circulation" just because they specialize in the type of subject of the article. That is like dismissing articles in scientific journals because they have "limited interest and circulation."   Your characterizing the book coverage as a "routine restaurant review " is wrong. That phrase refers to the routine coverage every  restaurant gets in local papers. Additionally, take a look at the Google News results, with respect to the newspaper coverage only being "local." There have been a great many articles in the New York Times and other non-local and nonspecialized publications covering the business, though they are behind paywall. I will take a look at the depth of coverage in the next day or so at my library. Also notice the part you omitted, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The Google News archive results from all over the country are certainly evidence of such national attention. And this is not merely a local restaurant: it is a manufacturing corporation with a product distributed internationally, as my ref 1 (a book) shows. Edison (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did search both the web and news but found only local coverage, so would welcome national coverage like you describe. I have always taken "limited interest and circulation" to be intended to exclude specialist publications which might be national but are read only by a small number in an industry or by a small number of enthusiasts. As for academic notability almost all academic publications have narrow readership, so WP:PROF uses other criteria. The book in the article looks like a local guidebook which as a matter of course covers all local businesses, whether or not they are notable – it may cover the subject well but does not establish notability.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The book only covers about 100 entities&mdash;from the entire state of Illinois, not just Chicago&mdash;with cultural/historic significance. (Note that it calls Eli's Cheesecake "Chicago's most famous dessert".) Many of the entities profiled aren't even businesses, but rather memorials or artistic works. (BTW, I did add a ref from the Wall Street Journal.) Zagal e jo^^^ 05:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would even argue that the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune are "regional" sources, not merely local ones. They cover a metropolitan area with dozens of distinct towns/villages and several million people. When I think of local newspapers, I think of the little neighborhood publications that list grade school honor rolls and such. (We have some of those in Chicago, too.) Zagal e jo^^^ 04:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really can't let this slide. Chicago is the third largest city in America and the Sun-Times and the Tribune are its two largest newspapers. Calling them "regional" "local" in an attempt to defend a sketchy deletion nomination is perfectly illustrative of the reason why IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER if a publication is "regional" "local" — only whether information is verifiable through substantial coverage in multiple, independently-published, factual sources. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I need to read first and rant second, clearly.... Carrite (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The provided references do allow it to satisfy WP:CORP as far as I'm concerned.  These are published, reliable sources. I've always found that line about "local" sources being less useful rather vague. §everal⇒|Times 16:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I favor a high bar on articles dealing with commercial entities, but this one pretty clearly passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 3 presidential inaugurations!! GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The purpose of WP:ORG as it applies to businesses is to attempt to draw a dividing line between businesses that have achieved things that should be remembered in an encyclopedia --- "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" (I usually shorten this to "history, technology, or culture") --- from those who have not, and are probably using Wikipedia for self promotion.  Here, the sources establish that this business's products are considered a regional signature dish, and that it has catered three Presidential inaugurations.  That's cultural and historical significance, and good enough for me. = Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I still don't see sufficiently notability, but I appreciate at this stage I am swimming against the tide, so I'll shut up now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:40, 11 December 2011 (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.