Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was dePRODed by - Sources that aren't blogs fail to offer significant coverage - doesn't meet WP:NCORP in offering non-local coverage that is in any way significant and the local coverage is very sparse too - the LA weekly just has:

which has obviously no actual depth. Also WP:NOTPROMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - It seems WP:BEFORE wasn't followed with this one. It took only seconds to find Uproxx and LA Weekly give very in-depth significant coverage to it (this is in addition to the other LA Weekly coverage the nom already indicated above). USA Today and the Orange County Register also have covered it. And being one of LA Weekly 's top 5 Tiki Bars is significant too.  And the Los Angeles Times calls it "wildly popular." It's hard to imagine a major Disney restaurant even being considered for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources when evaluated don't meet NCORP/GNG independance standards
 * Uproxx - interview with a bartender at the tiki barl what the bar tender says is obviously non-independant coverage; there's no meaningful coverage on the tiki bar apart from that
 * laweekly humour piece, so I wouldn't consider it reliable; also "Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources." - there's no broader context here
 * orange county register this is probably the best of the lot, but perhaps too narrow and also might fail "the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications"
 * USA today promotional paragraph, fails "Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product"/being "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject."
 * LA weekly top 5 same issue as USAtoday coverage
 * LA times mere mention
 * So overall there's maybe one source that can be counted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know where to start as you've completely shifted from your nom statement premise and now attacking the significant coverage you obviously didn't know existed before the AfD. For the Uproxx coverage, even if it were only an interview, which it's not, interviews are in fact in-depth coverage by independent sources as it was the independent source that chose to interview the topic, further demonstrating notability.  If it was the restaurant itself publishing an interview then you'd have a point.  Obviously not the case here.  But even outside of the interview there is significant coverage of the restaurant by the reporter.  For the LA Weekly piece, your opinion that it's a "humor" piece is noted, but just because you find the piece amusing in some parts does not in any way make the LA Weekly a non-reliable independent source and it in fact is far more than "a review of a particular meal" and is in-depth about multiple products and even the atmosphere of the place.  For the USA Today coverage, you just made the WP:BLP violating claim that USA Today reporter Arthur Levine has been paid to write a "promotional paragraph."  Now that you've made that new claim you need to provide evidence of such a claim.  That goes for your brand new attack on LA Weekly reporter James Bartlett in his "Top 5" piece.  You need to provide any evidence that this was not Bartlett's opinion he was paid to write that.  As for the Los Angeles Times explaining this is a "wildly popular" restaurant, your argument that it's just a "mere mention" is a straw man argument and a red herring as there was no claim that exact piece was more than that, but it does add to indication of its notability. --Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 *  For the USA Today coverage, you just made the WP:BLP violating claim that USA Today reporter Arthur Levine has been paid to write a "promotional paragraph."
 * Arthur Levine is a travel writer covering theme parks for USA Today, so yeah, in a manner of speaking that IS what he's paid to do. Do you know ANYTHING about travel journalism? --Calton | Talk 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Arhtur Levine paid by USA Today or do you have evidence he was paid by Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar?--Oakshade (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources as identified above such as the second LA Weekly piece, Uproxx, also USA Today and others so passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the analysis of the sources: the LA Weekly piece is a lengthy review of the bar, that it is couched in a humourous tone is not relevant in the least, the uproxx article as well as the interview includes the analysis of the reporter and the Orange County Register with a daily circulation of 250,000 is a regional publication so is allowed by Corpdepth and is certainly not too narrow and the review is by an expert restaurant critic with 20 year's experience so there is enough for WP:CORPDEPTH, coverage of a bar is not going to come in academic papers Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oakshade and Atlantic306. Satisfies GNG. Moreover, ORG is irrelevant because a bar is a place (a building or part of a building), not a group of people. James500 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Huh, so a place of business isn't an organization, it's a building? A strange interpretation of reality, but let's run with it: what part of the building notability guideines does Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar fulfill? --Calton | Talk 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * NGEO says that if a building satisfies GNG it is presumed to merit an article. Like every other topic that satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources listed above seem to me to be routine coverage expected for just about any bar/restaurant - I don't see significant in-depth/independent coverage. In addition, the article reads overly promotional and is not written in an encyclopedic tone and may be interspersed with OR. Those issues could be addressed through editing if there was notability... MB 00:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Routine" is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as "press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism" which the coverage is nothing of a sort. And certainly not "any bar/restaurant" receive the kind of coverage demonstrated here. That you want to label the in-depth/independent coverage (how is the coverage not independent?) as not so, well that's just contradiction to reality but readers can make up their own mind. The tone can be adjusted through regular editing. See WP:DEL-CONTENT. --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, subject appears to meet requirements set forth in WP:GNG as it has received significant in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, not limited to the ones already stated above, but as well as in Medium, OC Weekly, OC Register, and surely others.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2018 (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.