Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tupelo Honey Cafe


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tupelo Honey Cafe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declining db-spam deletion; taking to AfD. The taggers split on this one, and I'd like to get feedback on notability requirements for restaurants. A surprising number of ghits, but do restaurant reviews = notability? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. a. the article is really, really not good (diplomatic enough?) b. there's plenty of coverage available on Google News, see here c. the food is fantastic--you should try that breakfast of theirs with bacon, eggs, and home fries. Dan, it's great, and you can eat outside. Oh! yes, I do believe in their notability, and I hope someone will clean this article up. (I can't right now, I'm making ice cream.) Drmies (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per Drmies. MuffledThud (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Drmies. By the way, the nominator is a foodie? (I've seen him bring in food-related articles more than 3 times. :))-Caspian blue 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More confused than knowledgeable; food and restaurants have lots of hits in the popular press. So does today's weather, but hits != notability for commonplace things; how commonplace are good restaurants?  I can go either way; I do like the simplicity of "Google news stories focused on the subject = notability". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the quality of the hits and the significance of the mention matter, of course. This place has gotten a lot of coverage because it "stands" for something, some Asheville thing, one of those things easier to point to in a newspaper than to write up. BTW, Dan, if you are a foodie, I got some freshly made frozen peach yogurt for you. Linguist, that's a disgusting thought: no ice cream for you. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, probably - Here are some reliable sources that mention the restaurant., , , , , In my opinion, any given one of them isn't what I would call significant coverage, but I'd say they probably add up to notability, along with being mentioned on a TV show.  "Tu pelo" means "your hair" in Spanish, by the way. Hope they don't have any in the food. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very tasty article that passes WP:RS. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Decent reviews of a restaurant act toward notability just as such do for a film or a book. By way of comparison, we grant notability to fast food establishments based upon the press they generate in their wide-spread marketing, though they rarely get great reviews for quality of product. If a smaller one-of establishment makes enough of an impression to be reviewed and rated, that speaks toward its notability, as in my opinion, places like that rarely get in-depth news coverage unless they are otherwise historical or the site of some tragedy. So for them, a good review by established and respected restaurant critics such as Frommers, picked up by the New York Times, definitely works to show note.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * MQS, thank you for saying that so nicely and usefully. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Granite thump (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — It's a stub, but notability has been fairly-well established. I'm not sure how much more information really is needed on it. Without becoming a spam-laden article full of self-promotional material, I think that the basic facts have been presented. Include some snippets of useful information culled from the mentioned sources, and leave it a brief, but well-sourced article. At least until someone cares to invest a lot of effort into it. -- Will scrlt ( →“¡¿Talk?!” ) 18:05, 25 April 2009 (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.