Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fresh Mex restaurants


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Fresh Mex restaurants

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

"Fresh Mex" is a registered trademark of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc.. There is no cited caselaw here or anywhere else suggesting that this trademark has been diluted. The article cites no sources at all, much less any suggesting that there is any such general term in English as "Fresh Mex" (in any form of capitalization or lack thereof) to describe cuisine of any variety. The list is pure original research. There is also no Fresh Mex or Fresh mex article - both bluelinks simply redir to this list, which strongly suggests PoV-pushing – clearly someone wishes  that this were a definable term in general English when it is not. Furthermore, I cannot find any source for any such thing as "Mex" or "mex" to begin with; the phrase "fresh mex" or "Fresh Mex" is meaningless gibberish (which is okay in trademarks, as many of them are, but is emphatically not okay in WP article names, even aside from the trademark violation, OR and sourcing problems). Finally, the list seems not to serve any encyclopedic purpose and has no inclusion criteria. PS: The fact that a few other restaurant chains on the list use the word "fresh" in their names is neither here nor there; so do many other restaurants that have nothing at all to do with Mexican cuisine. PPS: The list is of national restaurant chains  (national? what nation?), but the list title says it is of "restaurants". –  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete given trademark issues and the lack of sources to establish "fresh mex" as a category of restaurants (or to show which restaurants fall within it). --Amble (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not at all convinced that Jerem43's understanding of trademark issues is correct. The USPTO does show the phrase "Fresh Mex" itself registered by Chevy's as a live trademark.  It is not true, as Jerem43 appears to claim, that only "Chevy's Fresh Mex" as a whole is trademarked.  Unfortunately, the USPTO's ungainly web interface makes it difficult or impossible to provide live links.  --Amble (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep:
 * To dissect the nominator's reasons for deletion:


 * 1) According to the USPTO the generic term fresh mex is not trademarked. The trademarks that are associated with Real Mex refer to the company's restaurant concept name Chevy's Fresh Mex, in fact there at least four companies that have the term fresh mex as part of their trademarked name.
 * 2) The fresh mex article was merged into the tex-mex article and the old article was converted to a list by me because there was almost no other information other than chain names.
 * 3) I picked a name that the nominator doesn't like, that does not mean it is worthy of deletion.
 * 4) Here is an example of the use of the general term fresh mex by a group other than a restaurant chain:
 * 5) This is definition of the term using a restaurant industry publication (albeit a poor def):
 * 6) This New York Times article establishes the notability of the term Fresh Mex and is a very reliable source:
 * 7) I've generated a list of Fresh mex restaurants in the US using an associated industry publication, Nation's Restaurant News, thus no WP:OR violation: Google search
 * 8) I quickly fixed the National issue, an easy fix.


 * The nominators argument of PoV pushing shows an ignorance of restaurant industry terminology; in the examples I have provided I have shown that it is a real term used in both the general populace (The NYT link) and in industry parlance (the Fast Casual magazine link). Furthermore, the last link shows that the term is obviously a shortened form of the term fresh Mexican. The large number of these chains in the market place also indicates that it is a viable sub segment of the restaurant industry and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.


 * I have shown that the list meets the five standards for notability and SMcCandlish must now show why it does not. It appears to me that SMcCandlish's nomination for deletion appears to be more WP:Idontlikeit than policy based reasoning. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply comment: Since you want to go the "dissection" route, I've done likewise, but posted it to the talk page here, because it's a bit lengthy to include in the middle of an AfD. I'll just copy-paste the "Conclusion" segment of it here:
 * Conclusion: The character string "fresh Mex" does "exist in the wild", divorced from Chevys, but means radically different things to different users of it, ranging from fresh-made fast food (a notoriously high-calorie food source), to self-consciously low-calorie food, and the only thing in common is (naturally) the Mexican influence. Ergo, this list article, even with sources, will be meaningless and confusing. It's not "a name that the nominator doesn't like", it's a meaningless name for encyclopedic purposes, with no rational inclusion criteria, and with two meanings that cannot reasonably be separated, nor reconciled, except through original research and the advancement of a personal opinion. I.e., it is not "a viable sub segment  [sic] of the restaurant industry", but a pair of words that means at least two radically different sub-segments of the industry. The "poor definition" advanced by Fast Casual isn't a definition at all – read it – it is a string of food marketing terms that indicates nothing objectively factual.  Your CSPInet source even confirms this conflict of meanings; they interpret it to mean "low-fat Mexican-style or -influenced food", to paraphrase (and they then say that often it actually is not), despite the fact that other sources clearly advance the meaning "quickly-prepared Mexican-style or -influenced fast food in a 'casual' [i.e. Wendy's-like rather than McDonald's-like] atmosphere". These two overall definitions have zero in common other than the "Mexican" connection.
 * Finally, your point #2 that an old "fresh Mex" article was successfully merged into something else and all that is left is a bare list of chain restaurant names is an enormous pair of points in favor of deletion.
 * PS: It is quite possible that the term will some day have a single, explicable definition. If and when that happens, then there's a good opportunity for articles on the topic – With sources, reliable ones. I stress this point, because you made it clear (here) that you believe that list articles are somehow exempt from WP verifiability policy.  They aren't.
 * —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sorry, Jeremy, but I'm going to have to agree with SMcCandlish here, mainly because "Fresh Mex" is such an arbitrary term with no definition page. Many Mexican food places claim that their products are Fresh, but that's POV-pushing. If we created a list named "List of Yummy Restaurants", and backed it up with sources from the corporate websites and third parties that recommend that a person try the yummy food, it would be deleted right away. In addition, the articles in this list should all be in Category:Mexican restaurants, which does a better job anyway. Intothewoods29 (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hmm. The category is too ambiguous and needs to be taken to CfD for forking into "Restaurants of Mexico" and "Mexican-style restaurants" (maybe the latter with a "Mexican-influenced restaurants" subcat). There are other ways of approaching it, but the gist is to separate the style from the location. In the interim, I'd support putting them all in that category, including this list article if it survives. I note that the subcat Category:Fast-food Mexican restaurants exists, but which of these restaurants do and don't qualify is an open question (part of the raison d'etre of this AfD). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 12:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah right after I said that I went through the list and made sure all of the articles are in the appropriate categories. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you've misunderstood me. I'm agreeing with you, but also suggesting further category clarification. There's a very strong trend at CfD to ensure that categories speaking of things "of" (as in natively or indivisibly of somewhere) be at one "of"-styled category, while things evocative of but not integral to that topic be in another. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know I was agreeing with you. Haha. Categorizing really isn't my expertise, so I'll leave any other improvements up to you; I just made sure the articles in the list were in the Mexican food or Fast-Food mexican food categories. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right! —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 07:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies: (Try this search for better results.)
 * 1) The search I listed earlier, not the one above this reply, provides a list of restaurants that are defined as "Fresh Mex," invalidating claims that Fresh Mex is owned and limited to Chevy's. It also provides dozens of examples of these types of restaurants. While it does give many hits for sites with the two search terms located on the same page that are unrelated, it does do a really good job of showing what I was pointing out that the term exists in the wild and that it is a valid market segment in the industry. The added Nation's Restaurant News variable (NRN is a major restaurant industry trade magazine) helps pare the list down to one that is more manageable and whose results conform to the standards of WP:RS and WP:V.
 * 2) I believe that lists do not need to have sources if they contain links to articles that do contain citations. The information contained within the lead of the list does need proper citations per WP:lists. Again this is my interpretation of WP:Lists, so I have placed a request for a third opinion on the WikiProject Lists talk page in regards to this issue of contention.
 * 3) If you are saying the New York Times is not reliable, than you need to provide a really good and valid reason as to why it isn't reliable. Yes it does make an occasional mistake, but that is to be expected with any newspaper; it is considered one of the most accurate and award-winning news sources in the world, and has obtained that reputation through thorough reporting time and time again. It is probably one of the most widely quoted secondary sources used on WP.
 * 4) Please read what I said about the CSPI link. I was using it as an example of the term being used outside of WP, not as a defining source. Again, the New York Times uses the term in numerous articles to mean lighter, Mexican inspired foods made from freshly prepared ingredients as opposed to prepackaged foodstuffs found at places such as Taco Bell and others. That is the only source that I have used to define the term in the list.
 * 5) Per the Fast Casual Magazine: again, I was using it as an example to show the term being used in the restaurant industry and not how it is defined in the list. You will not find it utilized anywhere in the list or any article for that matter. Also, you will find that most classification terms used in the restaurant industry, or any other retail industry for that matter, started out as marketing terms; this includes terms such as value menu, value meal, fast casual restaurant and others.
 * 6) I have worked on the list and brought into compliance with the standards set fourth in WP:Lists; all of its sources meet the criteria of WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V; and the list meets does not meet the criteria of WP:OR.

Again, please state a policy based reason as to why the list fails to meet the standards for AfD. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: No one (that I know of) is disputing the fact that the phrase "fresh Mex" exists. The dispute is that this term has no objective definition, much less a reliably sourceable one that does not conflict with competing reliably sourceable ones.  But none of that matters. What does matter is that this is a totally unsourced article.  You could make a WP:POINT out of this by going and sourcing it your particular way, but it can be sourced just as well in the opposite direction.  The problem is that, to the extent the phrase can be sourced at all, it means two opposite things, that are at cross purposes, and the list as it stands is an amalgamation of both.  Nothing of what you have said here changes that. Your above-expressed belief that list articles somehow are not subject to Wikpedia policy on sourcing stands on its own; I don't even need to say anything about it. All other issues I leave for the talk page, as my comments there have already addressed the points you raise. If you think they have not, then take it up there and we'll see. The ability to string together a numbered series of alleged arguments does not an actual argument make, especially given that most of these points have already been countered. Policy-based reasons have already been given, in spades. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 07:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are failing to see my point: you have not given a valid reason why the article does not meet the standards for inclusion, that is what an AfD is all about. You have to demonstrate how the article in question fails to meet the the standards of WP:Note, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V; that it violates the standards of WP:OR; or that it doesn't meet the standards of WP:Lists. I have shown that the subject in question does in fact meet the standards of the former and does not violate the standards of the center or the latter. Yes, the subject can mean different things to different people and organizations, but that is not grounds for deletion.

As per your claim that the list items found in lists need to be cited, here is some proof of what I am saying is correct using one randomly chosen Featured List: List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films. Take a look how the list is formatted and you will see that the list itself does not contain any citations (the notes do not count as citations). The only cites that are found in this list are in the lead and included paragraphs, just as they are in this list - exactly as I have been saying all along. The list items included in the list itself do not need to be cited, it is the individual articles that the list items link to that need to be properly cited.

So to be more specific, please show concrete evidence that this list violates one of the standards I listed in this posts first paragraph. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Arbitrary list. The fact that "fresh mex" exists as a term doesn't mean it has been adequately defined to give this list any inclusion criteria. There is no way to decide whether, say, Taco Bell belongs on the list or not. Plus the POV issues with "Fresh Mex" being a trademarked term are real and won't go away. This is not an attack on Jeremy, and he shouldn't take it as one, but his vehement protestations here smack of WP:OWN. axschme (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Side note - I didn't create it and do not wish to own it, I just take AfD arguments seriously and want others to as well. If you post an AfD, make sure your "i"s are dotted and you "t" crossed, that's all. Hell, I am the one that proposed the merge originally. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do appreciate your seriousness, but in the end I just don't think it looks good to respond in such detail to each and every !vote. It gives you the appearance of non-neutrality and it fills up this AFD with one person's opinion. You've got to give space to other voices. axschme (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:06, 6 October 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.