Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crab Cooker


 * 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 per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Crab Cooker

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete "The Crab Cooker" in google search provides some results. But I think this is a total spam article about a company (WP:ORG). Avinesh Jose (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep More than 500,000 google hits.The restaurant is a local landmark and is famous. This nomination was made in bad faith by an editor who didn't get what he wanted with a speedy tag. It was meant as a stub to give it a chance to grow. Newport Backbay (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Google test can be deceiving - see WP:GHITS. Add quotation marks and you get 658 google hits rather than 500.000. And most of them seem to be directory entries, blogs, restaurant guides, and the like. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And 355 without duplicates. They don't all seem to be about this "the crab cooker" although most seem to be. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ([by nominator]) A google search provides hardly 100 results, that too many from blog webpages, A google news search provides ZERO results. The article seems pure spam & ad (WP:SPAM). There is no reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:NOTE) (No need for separate article, may be just mention about this in Newport beach article --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep provided notability can be established. The initial spammy version was tagged for speedy deletion within two minutes of its creation, but the tone has already been improved, so I think the "spam" argument is no longer valid. The author appears to be making sincere efforts to bring the article up to Wiki standards. --DAJF (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:SPAM Mayalld (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because of a lack of notability. What makes this restaurant different or more special than any other restaurant? "It's known for its paper plates" seems a bit of a stretch. Joyous! | Talk 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like ad-spam to me for a nn restaurant. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.. Marcus22 (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Added two images from the commons. --evrik (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The restaurant is notable, and meets the google test. The AfD was premature. I think that if it had had more than an hour of existence before it was tagged for deletion it might have had a chance to grow and show notability. --evrik (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepOver zealous nomination, the article was just created. The business is over 50 years old and does seem to be a bit of a fixture on the So. Calif restaurant scene.   Notability can probably be establish, but lets assume good faith and not be quick to 'delete' before editors are given a chance to make an article that can pass muster.Jacksinterweb (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep only because article is so new -- spam argument no longer valid since article's been improved. Seems to have a marginal amount of notability. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice, lacking independant reliable secondary sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The two cites by the Register qualify as independant reliable secondary sources. --evrik (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or are they. Seeing that they are identical leads to believe they may be press releases. I couldn't find anything about that on the site. Not sure if it is actual editorial information, or that it is company supplied. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just added several more references, linked it to local culture, expanded it and now I'm hungery. Can we speedy close this as a keep? --evrik (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those got me convinced, keep. Since there is still some opposition that is more than marginal, it seems not prudent to speedy keep now, even if I expect this AfD to fail. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, As someone who's actually been there, it is a landmark establishment not only in Newport Beach but Orange County, CA. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This restaurant is notable because of its history in the city and because it is part of the culture of Newport Beach, unlike most restaurants.  This article can grow, but needs time. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. What's with the "spam" comments?  Is the owner posting menus, coupons, and slogans?  We have notability standards, might as well use them.  The Orange County Register is a significant, reliable source - the major paper for a population of nearly 3 million, and the fourth largest circulation paper in California.  Other references include the Oakland Tribune and some business publications.  The restaurant is notable because it is famous, iconic, and historical.  It gives context to the community.  An understanding of the business, culture, and community of Newport Beach and Orange County more generally includes an understanding of the place.  The sources [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22crab+cooker%22+%22newport+beach%22&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1999&as_hdate=2002&lnav=d2&ldrange=1975,1991&hdrange=2003,2005.  call it "celebrated", "very successful", "famous", "an institution", "landmark", and "world famous".   Wikidemo (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are enough sources that say this place is notable to justify the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks like a reasonable article. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:51, 29 November 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.