Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage Cave Club


 * 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Vintage Cave Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable restaurant lacking in-depth coverage. red dogsix (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Independent sources in the article seem marginally sufficient to pass WP:GNG. -- Jayron 32 04:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles in Honolulu Magazine (four pages) and Daily Mail exceed "routine restaurant reviews" per WP:ORGDEPTH, providing in-depth coverage. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple Zagat mentions puts this over the edge for me. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 05:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed that some of the citations were removed prior to AfD. See WP:BEFORE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles in Honolulu Magazine (four pages) and Daily Mail exceed "routine restaurant reviews" per WP:ORGDEPTH, providing in-depth coverage. In addition to Zagat reviews. Yankees999 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't usually involve myself with business or restaurant deletion discussions as thus is out of my area. Take my comments with that grain of salt. Since this is listed in visual arts delsort, I want to mention that having a Picasso work (the claim is neither elaborated on nor sourced) would probably fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. There are plenty of law firms or corporate offices that have original Picassos but that would not make them notable. Giving the article and sources a quick glance and taking into account the comments above, I'd say this is a weak keep in any case.  freshacconci  (✉) 16:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The citation was at the end of the paragraph, but I added a couple at the end of that sentence for that claim. If you are curious, there are several photos of the Picasso series online, including https://www.hawaii-aloha.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/VC2.jpeg and http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/02/2460C89D00000578-2894526-image-a-7_1420213374348.jpg Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't see that. It's definitely interesting that they have it.  freshacconci  (✉) 15:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * CommentThose Picasso works are editioned lithographs: aka "prints". As in 972/1000. They get cited as paintings, drawings etc in many of the articles. The owner seems to have gotten great promotional mileage from what are pretty unremarkable lithos. There's obviously a huge business in marketing work by the most recognized name in the art business--do a search for Picasoo lithograph and you will see. The artistic value and notability of these works is highly dubious. Talking about these low notability lithos in the article is in effect giving the restauranteur more promotion. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2017 (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.