Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasant Ridge Chili


 * 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. FT2 (Talk 18:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy based issue centers around whether a restaurant that has won a single minor award in its home town, and is (or has been) popular locally, is notable for Wikipedia inclusion purposes.

Non-policy based points raised: 1/ "Cincinnatians would understand immedietely why it was included" - fails WP:OR, 2/ "it gives broader coverage of our regional dish" - this is a reason to have an article on the regional dish, not on a restaurant that offers it, 3/ "the most notable 'cook', of the defining cuisine, of a large and notable city, in the English-speaking world" - notability of the city does not mean notability of a specialist restaurant within it, 4/ "makes 'the best' dish according to the locals" - a strong claim which is insufficiently evidenced as of 2007, and falls foul of WP:OR and WP:RS.

The main policy based points raised concern notability (WP:N), and also the concern that this article is better suited to a restaurant guide (WP:NOT). These are also in the majority of policy based points. I concur. One award is not notable, the restaurant is not notable, or the area in which it is notable is too restricted to support notability for Wikipedia policy purposes.

Even if there were a few more sources, such as a more recent award, this is likely to fall foul of WP:N in a second way, as a non-notable cross- or sub- categorization. In general, articles of the form "the most notable cook of cuisine X in town/city Y" are not usually considered notable per se, and much less so on the low level of evidence of significant notability presented in the article and this AFD.

I concur with the "delete" view, which is also in the majority of those raising policy-based concerns. Stripped to its basics, the article makes insufficient claim to notability and probably breaches WP:NOT. Media awards for "best local eateries" are common, and often say little by themselves. Winning one such newspaper award in 2000, in one sub-sub category (food → chili → non-chain), simply doesn't make it notable, even in a big city.

Pleasant Ridge Chili

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article fails to establish notability in compliance with WP:N. The first 'award' is a passing mention with no criteria as to how the 'award' was determined and the second 'award' referred to a different restaurant with the source a review containing nothing that marks the restaurant out from any other. Delete. TerriersFan 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as not passing WP:CORP. I can easily be swayed to keep, however, if some info is added regarding how it is important to the culture of Cincinnati and the development of Cincinnati chili.  young  american  (wtf?) 19:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Switching to keep per recent edits by User:Mind meal.  young  american  (wtf?) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep based on the award. No news coverage found outside Cincinnati. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per only local coverage.  I do not think we should have articles on restaurants who win local awards Corpx 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has won an award and is locally very well known. Cincinnatians would understand immedietely why it was included, and it gives broader coverage of our regional dish. This article is better referenced than most, and it established notability by two unaffiliated, reliable publishing sources in our city. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Meets the primary criteron of inclusion, as both sources are newspapers. The criterion says nothing about local coverage being not good enough. (Mind meal 02:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete Local awards are not sufficient for notability here or elsewhere--only significant awards are taken into account. This is especially true since such awards, especially awards can be subdivided indefinitely, for example this article's: " Best of Cincinnati "Best Chili (Non-Chain)" award, while Skyline Chili won the "Best Chili (Chain)" award" They could now do it by neighborhoods, or new and long-established, or Texan vs Mexican, and so on. A local establishment can be notable, but not on evidence like this. DGG (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite all arguments against, the article meets all criterion for inclusion. It has multiple reliable secondary sources; not advertising, self-published, or press releases. Not sure if people are using the guidelines at all here to determine inclusion criterion; seems not. Also don't know where the "local awards" are worthless idea comes from; especially given that both were awards given from reliable publishers in the city of Cincinnati (population 330,000). Should be included to expand coverage on Cincinnati chili also, a distinct regional dish. This isn't "Bill and Bob's Hamburger Shack", as this restauraunt is one of a finite group of restaurants in Cincinnati that serves our regionally distinct dish. I'm not sure why two articles by the Cincinnati Enquirer don't meet the secondary source requirement (owned by the Gannett Company, published since 1840; largest circulation in Greater Cincinnati); CiN Weekly, also cited, is published by them. Doesn't make any sense to me, aside from a systematic bias toward small business, in the face of reliable third party publishing. (Mind meal 05:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete. A minor local award isn't enough to sustain notability. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this is the most notable "cook", of the defining cuisine, of a large and notable city, in the English-speaking world. Although I can't stomach the stuff, this place makes "the best" dish according to the locals.  It's well-sourced, too. Bearian 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Being a native Cincinnatian, I know that there is only one location, so this restaurant is clearly not notable. WP:ILIKEIT is not cause to keep. - Gilliam 03:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see WP:ILIKEIT at play here, as Mind meal has added sources to show how this specific restaurant has played a part in the culture and development of Cincinnati chili, an important American regional dish and a critical component of the cultural life of Cincinnati, a major city in the US. Also, only having one location need not automatically exclude inclusion in WP, as long as that one location is somehow notable, as I feel Mind meal has shown.  young  american  (wtf?) 12:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as article fails notabilty beyond its neighborhood. This article is better off in a restaurant guide, where it will be more useful. --Gavin Collins 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Where in the standards of notability does it require notability to be "beyond its neighborhood"? Given the sources (and the reasons that Mind meal states), it seems to fit all requirements of WP:N, i.e. multiple independent sources, etc.  It doesn't matter if there's only one location either.  Where's the requirement in WP:N for there being more than one?  Seems to be a lot of WP:IDONTKNOWIT going on here.  --Craw-daddy | T | 13:53, 28 August 2007 (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.