Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The glass house 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. Cirt (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The glass house bistro

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable company. As an article about an eatery, there is no assertion of notability and the article would have qualified under WP:CSD. However, as an article about a building from the 1930s that has been rehabbed and renovated, there was the possibility of notability, if this particular rehab had received any significant coverage. Unfortunately, no sources could be found to say that it had received any coverage. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom: part of the article is interesting but non-notable, the remainder is spam for the bistro ("We also host a wide range of themed nights including Jazz evenings" etc) and surrounding area. I42 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete interesting != notable. Not seeing how this one might be able to meet notability guidlines.  I'm having problems finding coverage as well RadioFan (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Find somewhere to merge it. I think it is saying that Northstead Manor Gardens is a park in Scarborough, North Yorkshire. If so, we probably need an article on the park and a paragraph saying that the former glasshouse has been preserved and turned into a "bistro" (a cafe, kiosk or snack bar). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While I dont doubt a good article could probably be written about Northstead Manor Gardens, there isn't anything worth merging from this article there. The article has zero references and could be original research for all we know.--RadioFan (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am editing the article to emphasise the building, rather than its current use. Biscuittin (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As you will note, the nomination of this article already considered the possibility of rewriting the article about the building rather than the company occupying it. Unfortunately, while an interesting local tidbit, there is not enough significant coverage to verify the notability of this building.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could give me a bit more time to gather evidence of notability. Biscuittin (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This page was nominated on 4 February. Nominations are normally allowed to run for 7 days -- that should give you a couple of more days.  If the article is deleted, and you find more sources later, there's nothing to stop you from recreating it with your new sources.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added more references. Is this sufficient? Biscuittin (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * I note that the normal relisting rules would suggest that this debate should have been closed at this juncture. However, as there has been no !votes or revisions of !votes since Biscuittin's addition of references, it appears fairer to allow a relisting period. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was surprised to see the discussion re-listed, it should be closed as a delete. The recently added references dont do much to establish notability here.  Only 2 are close to being reliable sources and in total haven't demonstrated significant coverage of the topic.--RadioFan (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with RadioFan: the recent revision makes the article less spammy, but it still does not assert the notability of this building. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I still see borderline spam / non-neutral prose ("The Glass House Café/Bistro provides breakfasts, coffee, lunch, afternoon teas, through to fine dining on an evening, along with catering for special occasions", "Nearby is Peasholm Park, which has delighted families for centuries with its lovely walks, lake and miniature golf") - but that is fixable. What has not been established is that the bistro is in any way notable - the 3rd party refs barely mention the building (one doesn't even mention it at all). So my delete recommendation stands. I42 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete even with the changes I don't feel it meets WP:GNG. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 15 February 2010 (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.