Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Chung's (restaurant)


 * 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, so that in 500 years, if some anthropologist can't remember which 21st century Chinese restaurant chain in Scotland served seagull, she'll have a bunch of dead links to sources which show it wasn't this one. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Chung&

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

No assertion of notability. Do we need an article on every restaurant the world has ever seen? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Abstain. not if they have not received coverage by independent third party publishers. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But it has. You may want to improve your searching methods.  Celarnor Talk to me  17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is covered in reliable sources.  Celarnor Talk to me  17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, fair enough. I got a chuckle while reading the "restaurant accused of serving seagull instead of chicken" article but I'm still not entirely convinced.  I've withdrawn my motion to delete for the time being.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems marginally notable; a few controversies have shown up surrounding it, including the aforementioned seagull thing. I've started to expand the article and make it less of a menu and more of an ... article.  Celarnor Talk to me  18:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage isn't significant, failing the notability threshold. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This isn't a restaurant, it's a chain. JamesMLane t c 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not convinced that this meets WP:N.  Being the topic of rumors and the quality of the sources leaves me wondering. Nothing in the article leads a reader to believe that the chain is notable and clearly incidents at specific restaurants do not make the chain notable.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Probably on the lower end of the "notable restaurants" spectrum but it certainly seems to have had a fair amount of coverage. It's a subjective judgement in terms of interpreting WP:N but I think it's good enough. ~ mazca talk 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. See Mzoli's for precedent on restaurants in general. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources that meet with WP:N here here covered and here here.-- RyRy5  ( talk ) 12:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - appears to be a chain and has had some coverage. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It has reliable sources. It may not be as notable as some other restaurants, but I don't think we are supposed to base our decision on those restaurants. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Weak delete, article seems to exist primarily to disparage the restaurant. J I P  | Talk 20:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is a content problem, not a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a content issue which has resulted in deletion before. While this is an article about a restaurant, not a person, we regularly delete WP:BLP articles with these sort of issues on a routine basis.  My stance on this article remains neutral but if content issues cannot be resolved in a reasonable period of time don't be surprised if this article magically disappears.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple independent sources exist. Meets WP:N and WP:V.  May need cleanup. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As proved above the subject has coverage in multiple reliable sources.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - a nine-branch buffet chain? Not notable; no assertion of notability either. Biruitorul Talk 02:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a chain...--MacRusgail (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but does that imply inherent notability? How large must a chain be to be notable? Biruitorul Talk 23:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What standard of notability are you using? The subject is discussed multiple times in reliable sources, all non-trivial coverage.  What more do you want?  Celarnor Talk to me  01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like more than just incidental notability. Yes, Chinese gangs were once vaguely associated with the chain, and yes, they may have served seagulls. That doesn't indicate lasting or sustained notability for the chain itself - events associated with it just happened to make the news a couple of times. Biruitorul Talk 02:08, 31 May 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.