Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge


 * 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   '''The article has been usefried so I can close this. . Tone''' 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank and Mary&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: No indication of notability. (NB: Article has already been deleted 4 times under the title "Frank and Mary’s Family Restaurant and Lounge" and once under the title "Frank and Mary’s Catfish House". ) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G4 Recreation of deleted material.  Apparently, nobody wants to have this as part of the article about Pittsboro, Indiana either, but in any event, not notable. Mandsford (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My understanding is that "recreation of deleted material" refers to material that has failed an articles for deletion process, and to the best of my knowledge this has not. Accounting4Taste: talk 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT explains it all. Mega Delete The Weak Willed 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've tried to help this user to understand reliable sources and will take no !voting position here. However, I think this article is on the borderline.  One problem is that there are no useful guidelines about the notability of individual restaurants, AFAIK; my instinct is to think that restaurants that have been in existence for quite a while are more possibly notable than others, and this one has been around for decades.  The references provided might or might not bolster notability, depending on your attitude.  There are no notable chefs associated with this restaurant.  Do restaurant reviews count?  I suppose it depends on how well-known the reviewer is, and the notability of the publication, and I'm not able to assess the relative notability of what's provided since I am not familiar with the publications.  I have no idea how unusual/not unusual it is to have a catfish restaurant in the referenced area; in my area, it would be extraordinary and possibly notable (mainly because the catfish would have to be flown in from thousands of miles away).  It's not clear if this is a prominent example of a restaurant exemplifying a notable regional cuisine.  For all these grey areas, I'm willing to defer to someone with greater expertise, but I wanted to mention them to make sure this article received full consideration. Accounting4Taste: talk 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I note also that Notability (restaurants) has not received the blessing of the community as a standard, but may be useful; if these criteria were applied here, I believe this article would fail the AfD.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I now see the arguement here. I still vote delete though. Age doesn't indicate notability, and this is no exception. I have visited many restaraunts that are this old, or slightly younger. Age may help indicate notability, (such as if the food network were to do a 3 hour documentary on the oldest diner in North Carolina, but until there has been media coverage, it shouldn't be notable. My 2¥. The Weak Willed 17:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even in the limited abstracts that are shown in the linked references, you can see that this small restaurant in Indiana has been reviewed in the Baltimore Sun and the Chicago Sun-Times.  This would seem to make it meet the business notability guideline fairly handily.  A perfect illustration of why consumer businesses will be inherently more notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to pay to check the Baltimore Sun piece, but I think it's identical to the Sun-Times one. If you look at the search results here, you'll see that several papers picked up that piece from Universal Press Syndicate in January–March 1991. It seems to be the only at-all-substantial news treatment of the place. Deor (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the abstracts for those two newspaper articles, they have the appearance of write-ups of a press release. It is very common for several newspapers to print the same or essentially the same syndicated item based on a press release. In fact ironically enough calling attention to these newspaper items has increased my feeling that the article should be deleted, on the principle that if this is the best that the article's defenders can come up with then there must really be little coverage. There is often disagreement about what constitutes "substantial" coverage, but these don't look like it to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. I originally took no position, merely raising a number of points for consideration (see above) but upon consideration I have to agree with the nominator, especially in the comment immediately above.  The newspaper pieces do look rather uncritical and appear to have accepted the restaurant's own assertions wholesale.  Thus there seem to be no reliable sources offering substantial coverage, and I think User:JamesBWatson has put his finger on the crux of the definition of substantial.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * delete as a topic entirely non-notable and unsuited for an encyclopedia, without even thinking about outside sources. one or even multiple restaurant reviews would not make this useful encyclopedic material. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found sufficient sources that allow this restaurant to pass WP:N. Here is a restaurant review written by Chicago Sun-Times from Jane and Michael Stern. After perusing through the contents of this article, I have determined that it is a review, not a republishing of a press release. The article says, "Waitresses work fast and are friendly ..." Although this is not a critical review, it proves that the reviewers tried out the restaurant. The second source I discovered was this article by Susan Guyett of The Indianapolis Star. This is a fully-available article, and a cursory look at it proves that it is a reliable review. Third, this article by David Newton of ESPN discusses Frank and Mary's in relation to Jeff Gordon, who always ate there "because there's really no other place to eat." Finally, I was able to obtain this Google Books entry, which provides a 3-page review for this restaurant. Although this is a travel guide, notability is clearly established because the other restaurants in this book receive on average a half-page review. These four sources are all in-depth reliable sources about the subject. If this were a BLP or a novel, notability would be fully established. Why would it be any different for a restaurant? It shouldn't be because this restaurant easily passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That third one is hardly a substantial treatment of the restaurant. And the fourth one is a travel-guide entry for a different place, in Chicago. So what we have is one review (the Stern piece, whatever its origin) that was picked up by several papers and one review in a local paper. Deor (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The first two sources are sufficient to establish this restaurant's notability. Two in-depth sources are enough for a restaurant to pass WP:CORP. However, the presence of other sources that discuss this restaurant add even more to its notability. You argue that a review in a local paper is doesn't demonstrate notability. Where in the notability guidelines does it state that local sources are insufficient to establish notability? There is nothing wrong with local newspaper articles, as long as the newspapers have an editorial board and can qualify as a reliable source. Although the other two sources are not stellar, they do add to this restaurant's notability. Please explain why a travel book is an unreliable source or a source that doesn't establish notability. This travel book has information about a number of restaurants. However, it decided to devote 3 pages to this restaurant (whereas other restaurants receive only half a page). The book entry not only provides information about the restaurant's food, but it also provides significant history about it. This book is not a directory of all the restaurants in Chicago; instead, it provides information about restaurants that it deems notable. This is definitely not a passing mention, so it should not be disqualified. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, those three pages in that travel guide are not about the restaurant that's the subject of this article, which is in Pittsboro, Indiana. They're about a completely different restaurant, which is in Chicago, Illinois. Clear now? Deor (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite true. Nonetheless, the remaining three reliable sources are enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - lots of local restaurants will get local reviews. Aside from the UP newswire pickup, there hasn't been any coverage outside the local area.  And even in the local area, there is not evidence of notability with any repeated and multiple reviews of the restaurant. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lots of local restaurants will get local reviews. True, but Wikipedia is not made of paper. This argument is wrong because there is no limit to space. Aside from the UP newswire pickup, there hasn't been any coverage outside the local area. I don't know what you mean by "UP newswire pickup", but this article is not a press release. It is a reliable source that is from Gainesville, Florida, which is thousands of miles from Pittsboro. And even in the local area, there is not evidence of notability with any repeated and multiple reviews of the restaurant. There are two local articles (in addition to one article from a non-local newspaper) about this restaurant, so that should be sufficient to establish notability. Pittsboro, Indiana has a population of 2,567. With a town of this size, there is seldom more than one local newspaper. The fact that this restaurant has received two articles is a testament to its notability. Deleting an article with three reliable sources because two are local sources is unreasonable. Cunard (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't been reading this AfD very closely. What "newswire pickup" means is that the same review, distributed by the Universal Press Syndicate, was printed in several papers around the same time. Note that the Chicago piece cited in the article is identical to the Gainesville piece you're making so much of now, which is identical to pieces published in Dallas, Lexington, Baltimore, and Salt Lake City papers. All of these appearances of the one review can't be considered separate sources for the purpose of establishing notability. And where are these "two local articles"? I see only one. Deor (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Universal Press Syndicate an unreliable source? No, so it should not be discounted. The two local articles are this one and this one. The first one is very in-depth, while the second one provides three paragraphs of information about this company. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It boils down to the breadth and depth of coverage. For me, this doesn't cut it. -- Whpq (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: The article's author has moved the article into his user space, leaving a cross-namespace redirect in mainspace, which I'm reluctant to have deleted until this AfD concludes, since doing so would break the links at the head of this page. The article has once before been userfied for him when it was deemed unsuitable for mainspace, and he moved it back (as the article we're considering here) without asking anyone whether it had become suitable. I'd normally view a move of this sort as an attempt to short-circuit the AfD; but the author is a youngster who hasn't shown much comprehension of WP policies or practices, and he perhaps didn't realize that the move wasn't a good idea. I recommend that if the conclusion here is for deletion, the page User:Sedna10387/Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge be deleted, along with the redirect (and perhaps the various titles at which articles about the restaurant have been deleted should be salted to prevent re-creation). Deor (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wasn't going to !vote on this, since I have a certain amount of sympathy for the author, who I'm sure is of the opinion that I've been very mean to him during his time here, thwarting his efforts to write about aspects of his hometown that seem important to him. Nevertheless, I concur with the reasoning of the nominator and Accounting4Taste. Deor (talk) 02:21, 30 August 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.