Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'As du Fallafel


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  15:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

L'As du Fallafel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Non notable article. Article is about a restaurant in Paris. One source used is a travel article for the NYT, the other is a travel guide where a "Margie Rynn" says its the best falafel in Paris. Another source says its Lenny Kravitz favorite restaurant. Other info in the article is even more non notable. I fail to see any notability here at all. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Clearly notable given all the sources (didn't even delve into French ones). Given your hatred of Jewish Middle Eastern cuisine (as well documented) Supreme, you are clearly the wrong person to be going about this. But thanks for giving another indication of your disgusting battleground behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, unfortunately. Bazillions of restaurants exist in the world - why does this one specifically pass WP:GNG. While I am sure it is a great restaurant, and possibly worthy of including in a list of restaurants in Paris, it is not worthy it's own article. Also WP:NOTTRAVEL --Errant (chat!) 23:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article does show many signs of notability however does require a heap load of cleanup which I am more than willing to complete. I am well aware that the references do need work. On an off-topic note, If you had ate there Supreme, you would be nominating the article for community consideration here at AfD. maucho  eagle   23:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep- Non-trivial or in-depth c Coverage in English, Chinese, Danish, French, and Hebrew, spanning 8 years on three continents including the three most populous American states of California, New York, and Texas; clearly meets WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:RS. Dru of Id (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the: "Non-trivial or in-depth coverage in English, Chinese, Danish, French, and Hebrew, spanning 8 years on three continents" you are referring to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies; if there is non-trivial or in-depth coverage of the business, it's in the paywall articles, offline, or with the business name translated; I've gone back and read each "news" result above, plus all with "ace of falafel", running every non-English article through google translate - those that are in-depth are about something else. Breadth of mentions cited above still implies WP:GNG, with sufficient coverage elsewhere (including the possibility of it being behind those paywalls, although I think that less likely, now). Dru of Id (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - One of the inherent issues facing this article, and many like it, is that with more and more news & travel journals putting their content online, some might consider that the threshold of WP:RS is being lowered; That said, WP:RS and WP:GNG seem to be satisfied, although it could stand to be improved. A quick google search brings up a number of mentions, ranging from CNN and the New York Times to "foodie" related websites and blogs.  -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ &lrm; 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Hmmm, a Paris restaurant reviewed in the New York Times and their are doubts about notability? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The coverage I'm seeing seems broad enough to indicate notability; The point about the NYT review is particularly telling. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Lenny Kravitz's favorite restaurant! Now seriously, there IS enough significant coverage about it so it passes GNG. WP:NOTTRAVEL surely doesn't apply here, dear Administrator, user:ErrantX. And to your question, "why does this one specifically pass WP:GNG." I answer: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" Dragquennom (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The reviews by extremely reliable sources themselves satisfy WP:GNG. The French sources even more so.--Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 28 April 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.