Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Office Bistro


 * 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. I will provide a copy for userfication if asked, so long as development takes place in userspace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Office Bistro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a newly opened restaurant. Sources are the regional press with routine announcements about the opening, one is an Advertiser feature. Per WP:CORPDEPTH and ADVERT. A CSD was declined by an IP editor. Ben Ben (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking closer, the article obviously meets the WP:GNG as well as the WP:ORG guideline.  Some changes have been made to the article, and it is not finished yet.  I intend to add additional print sources in the next day or two.  One of the article sources is not online, so that may be one cause of the confusion.  This appears to be a case of an overhasty nomination.  The subject is covered in reliable sources, including newspapers and books, in a way that is not trivial.  The depth and independence of the sources appears to argue strongly for inclusion.  For reference, the page is modeled after a similar city-restaurant landmark, Portland City Grill.  There were some links to company-created content for reference, and perhaps the nominator mistook those sources as the only ones - but there are in fact multiple independent non-trivial sources. John Stenson (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC) — John Stenson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I should note that while I have been editing on many subjects since 2006, I only recently registered this account. That may be one reason why User:Ben_Ben was concerned the article may be promoted by an WP:SPA.  —John Stenson 21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting edit you did in this discussion: . You wrote this as IP Special:Contributions/50.45.159.67 and later changed your signature to John Stenson. That's not the problem, but this was the same IP that declined the CSD on your article. Same IP wrote on your talk page like a third person. You are  cheating  canvassing, John! --Ben Ben (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC) - --Ben Ben (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is getting oddly personal. I have responded at your talk page.  I at no time "cheated" and I hope you will retract that statement.  I saw a need and worked to fill it, [personal information redacted].  Please WP:AGF, as I will try to do toward you. —John Stenson 22:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello John, you should read Canvassing. Off-wiki contacting an editor to persuade him to join in to a deletion discussion and to delete a CSD tag (your son as an IP ) is considered inappropriate and disruptive. Even if you didn't actively persuade him, he is your son and did was sons have to do. IP editing close to a new editors edits has a taste. --Ben Ben (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please add your printed, reliable, non trivial, in-depth, independent, multiple independent non-trivial sources to the article.--Ben Ben (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Multiple news articles that are reliable and nontrivial are already added.  Two other print sources I will add in the near future, I am in the process of procuring them.  [personal information redacted] working on getting the additional print sources ready.  Noticed that this landmark did not have an article, even though similar landmark restaurants (like the one noted above, and many more) do have articles.  I know we get a lot of "spam" here on Wikipedia though, so I will try to make the notability plainer. —John Stenson 22:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been added. Except ConcernedVancouverites tags. Thanks to CV for that. --Ben Ben (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There were 3 reliable sources at time of posting. 2 more are coming, but it has been less than a day since you posted this hasty AfD. —John Stenson 22:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy. Give the article creator a chance to work on it in his userspace and provide sources, but remove it from the main namespace at this time due to failure to establish notability. Ibadibam (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Local coverage of a local restaurant. I see no significant coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as almost certainly a prank article creation by a banned editor trying to make a point. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an intriguing allegation. What evidence led you to that conclusion? Ibadibam (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: An IP editor has added two additional references to the article today. Both were improperly formated. Another, registered user tried to repair them but failed, cause both links are dead. --Ben Ben (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done what I can to fix the refs, but I have to say, they don't really point to anything useful. I switched the inline citation tags to be more suitable to the problems the sources pose. Ibadibam (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I have not had time to add the additional sources as I indicated I would. I still think it stands on its own as is.  However, if consensus indicates that it is not yet ready for mainspace, please move it to my user space so I can add information in the coming weeks, as there are several additional sources that may change the minds of some. —John Stenson 19:29, 2 August 2013 (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.