Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Hen


 * 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. Consensus to keep. No consensus about the name / scope. Cannot redirect to Red Hen restaurant controversy because that article does not exist. Recommend a move discussion on the talk page to determine whether the article should be renamed to be about the incident.  Sandstein  19:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The Red Hen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The only coverage this single-location restaurant received prior to last week was WP:ROUTINE restaurant reviews. Currently more than 50% of the article is based on a single, well-publicized incident last week. Within a few days coverage of this restaurant should probably be back to routine restaurant reviews. Chetsford (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree with . Example of WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Restaurant isn't inherently notable otherwise. Bkissin (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Just one more stupid incident in the 45 train wreck. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I mean, here you have an article where:
 * The article exists. It's not a question of "should an editor devote resources to creating this article". Somebody already has (me).
 * And it's a decent article. It is properly written and formatted etc., refs included, infobox used correctly, and so on. It's not like its a shit article that'd be better off burned down and started from scratch, very far from it. And it doesn't violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP or any key rules like that.
 * And it easily meets and far surpasses WP:GNG by a country mile, with significant coverage in very many of the most reliable, notable, and read publications in America, and also internationally (Reuters, Guardian, probably many others), although most of these are not in the article at this time. There's no question that this article has potentially much better references that most articles, and in fact better that >90% (I have studied this some). GNG is basically the first metric we look at for notability, and it trumps more specialized rules such as WP:NOTNEWS.
 * And anyway WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. If you actually read the rule rather than relying solely on its title, you'll see that the four bullet points of NOTNEWS are concerned with abjuring Original reporting ("reference: I myself saw the explosion") and routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities ("the Cardinals beat the Mets 4-3 on June 25 2018"; Tom Hanks was seen in the company of Laura Dern on June 25 201"), and the other bullet points are to avoid "who's who" and "diary" type stuff. All this has absolutely nothing to do with this article.
 * And a lot of people are interested in the subject right now (842 views yesterday). I mean reader interest isn't everything but it's not nothing either, since we are not really in the business of telling readers "We could give you the information you seek, but we won't because we are snobs; sucks to be you, and good luck with your Google search" when there are lots of readers seeking the information.
 * And, partly because of the fallout from this -- Sanders' (claimed) ethics violation, the Presidents bizarre response (which is arguably a tort) and so on, some non-zero number of people are going to want to look this up 10 years from now and 100 years from now (a few specialists for the latter, but they count). I note that Jimmy Carter rabbit incident is averaging 208 views daily. George H. W. Bush vomiting incident is averaging 169 views daily (FWIW many of our articles, on fungi species and many other obscure subjects, average about 1 view per day), and these incidents are very much less notable and important is my guess.
 * And just stop this. I understand the mentality of "I, personally, do not care to read this sort of article, so other people shouldn't get to read it either", but that doesn't have much to do with what we are trying to accomplish here, which is to make the internet not suck.
 * I recognize that some (not all) of my arguments, such as reader interest, don't reference a bluelinked rule, but I mean come on, we are not rulebound (that's one of the Five Pillars), not a bureaucracy, and are supposed to supersede rules that force unhelpful outcomes. And there's three more bluelinks for you. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nom says the restaurant was the subject of a single incident, but admits that it was a single well-publicized incident.  We can provide a service to our readers by making further information available, and the article is properly sourced. JamesMLane t c 11:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I mean let's see what goes in the blank: "We improve the encyclopedia, the reader's experience, and the world generally, by deleting this information rather than providing it to readers who are seeking it, because ______________". What goes in the blank? I'm genuinely asking, and if there's a compelling answer then I'll change my opinion. But if not, not. Herostratus (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename Sarah Sanders restaurant incident, Red Hen restaurant controversy or similar and KEEP, but ONLY keep if renamed and article is changed into an article about the incident, because restaurant appears to be non-notable, but the incident is sufficiently significant to overcome WP:ONEEVENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator says it only had restaurant reviews before the Sanders incident, but a company can become notable through an important enough event, especially if the President of the US goes out of his way to verbally attack the place in revenge. If Trump had not jumped in, I might have favored some mention in the article on Sanders rather than a stand-alone article. In the last 24 hours the Republican Party of Virginia has called for a boycott of the restaurant. The outburst of threats to this and other different restaurants of the same name also argues for keeping the article, since the incident and the continuing furor has enhanced its notability a bit. The Stonewall Inn was not that notable a place before the riots. The Pulse nightclub was not that notable before a mass shooting. Granted, this was a refusal of service rather than a shooting. Edison (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think these are valid points. It's only four days since the incident and the consistency of coverage seems to have fallen off dramatically ( edit - this is what I get when I run ["Red Hen" AND Sanders] through Lexis so, though it peaked, it may not have fallen off as much as I perceived ) and I personally think it's, perhaps, too soon for us to predict that the lasting importance of Sara Sanders being refused steak tartare may rise to the level of the Stonewall riots or the Pulse massacre. That said, I do agree with the spirit of your comment that, should we see continued coverage at a decent clip, the ONEEVENT standard would be overcome. I'll plan to check back prior to this AfD's expiry and change my !vote to Keep or Rename (as per E.M.Gregory, above) if we're still seeing ongoing reporting of substance. Chetsford (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that a prominent D.C.-based public official went to this particular restaurant in a small town almost 200 miles outside Washington, with a large entourage, confirms that this restaurant was already a known go-to place. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename per E.M.Gregory, above. The incident is receiving massive coverage, and the article should be expanded, not deleted. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, but agree this should probably be renamed Red Hen restaurant controversy. The protests at the restaurant since the incident have generated national news coverage, , and Congresswoman Maxine Waters has publicly responded to the controversy supporting the restaurant owner and has publicly encouraged her supporters to similarly confront Trump aides when out in public prompting disagreement from members of her own party such as Nancy Pelosi  . The controversy is clearly notable and clearly meets WP:GNG at this point. DynaGirl (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Red Hen restaurant controversy and Rewrite per E.M.Gregory. Based on the evolution of news coverage since the nomination was made, I'm now of the opinion that the incident itself was notable, though the restaurant is not, and strike my nominating !vote for delete. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with Redirect to Red Hen restaurant controversy (which appears to be the best name, although we can always reconsider that if it settles into some other COMMON name in the months or years to come,) and Rewrite.   This EVENT has sufficient WPSIGCOV to support notability, but it absolutely MIST be rewritten as an incident (i.e. not a a restaurant article) or it will have to be deleted..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As the original editor, and writer of a lengthy Keep comment above, I have no problem with Red Hen restaurant controversy, so put me down for this also. (It would then need the sections swapped and a bit of a rewrite; IMO it's OK to keep the restaurant description, below the fold, since some non-zero number of info seekers will be wanting to know what the deal is with the venue where the controversy started; the fact that it's a... alternative... type place and not a Denny's type place is germane to an understanding of how this started I think. I can do the rewrite if necessary.) Herostratus (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Anomalocaris' reasoning above is compelling. Even if that wasn't so, we've already had references to the same thing in the original version of the article, before the 2018 controversy section was added. Indeed, that section should be reduced to perhaps a sentence or two because that is the violation of WP:NOTNEWS, not the generic stuff above which does appear to be encyclopedic. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that appearance deceived me. Despite the controversy, it seems to be WP:too soon. Delete. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename (or Delete) - the incident is perhaps notable, but the restaurant is only famous for the incident. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but a rename is probably advisable. The event in question may not be the single most monumental act of political protest in history, but I have a hard time denying that it nevertheless passes WP:GNG in a manner that establishes lasting (if probably footnote-esque) notability.  A rename to a title that puts an emphasis on the event from which the notability arises would probably make sense, however. Snow let's rap 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename and Delete. The restaurant fails the notability guidelines - none of the references provide any sort of in-depth information on the company. Most references refer to the restaurant in relation to the POTUS incident and not to the restaurant itself. References fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. If the incident is deemed worthy, then this article can provide a template in which to rewrite with a focus on the incident.  HighKing</b>++ 14:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which references outside of the controversy section fail those guidelines? They're mostly thin, but I don't quite see the problem with independence for most of them. There's a local lifestyle magazine, a user review site, a local recipe book. For a small restaurant, what more is there to expect? Admittedly, this may indicate a much simpler problem with WP:GNG. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All of them. You may be misinterpreting what is required by "independence". This washingtonpost.com article relies extensively on quotations/interview with the owner, has no opinion/analysis from the journalist, is not intellectually independent, contains no in-depth information on the restaurant and therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. This Virginia Living article is a mere 3-line promotional mention in passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Trip Advisor fails as a reliable source. The Washintonian reference has no attributed journalist and fails WP:RS but is also a mere mention in passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The CBS News article fails for the same reason as the Washington Post article. The Our Local Commons] fails WP:RS. Tumblr fails WP:RS. The CNET article is mainly reporting on Yelp reviews (fails WP:RS) but provides no in-depth information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The BBC article has no attributed journalist and provides no in-depth information on the restaurant and is little more than a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The CNBC article provides no in-depth information on the restaurant and is also little more than a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Fortunearticles and this CBS News article all fail for the same reason. So .. not a single one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So basically the contention is that since the controversy, no sources bothered to write anything substantial about the restaurant itself. I suppose that's a self-fulfilling prophecy in a news cycle this fast, but it's also as good an indicator of notability as we can have. Thanks for the effort. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It means the controversy itself may be notable but the restaurant most likely isn't in its own right. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 09:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. The controversy has been documented, but it hasn't led to any more reliable info on the place itself. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A similar incident unfolded last week when White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was kicked out of a restaurant in Virginia.
 * Redirect to Red Hen restaurant controversy. Global coverage, and now a touchstone, a point of reference to which similar events are compared:
 * XavierItzm (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: meets WP:NEVENT; lasting impact is clear. The move discussion, if needed, can occur on the article's Talk page. The present name is fine as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you saying that "The Red Hen" restaurant, the topic of this article, is notable and meets the criteria for notability (in which case your Keep !vote makes sense)? Just that NEVENT applies to "events", not companies/organizations. Or perhaps you're saying that the name of the notable event is "The Red Hen"? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Preferably redirect to Red Hen restaurant controversy or similar name; otherwise keep as it is. Bangalamania (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.