Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yawarakan’s 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 delete.  Sandstein  20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yawarakan’s Cafe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are citations to back up whats written in this article, but the underlying issues of credible dissertation of notability and the promotional tone of the article are a matter of concern. As a show of good faith to the editor and the topic I'm opting for an AFD as opposed to CSD, although my suspicion is that the end result will be the same regardless of which avenue is used. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and copy edit. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources include:, , , , . North America1000 21:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Uncertain as some of the coverage seems convincing but at the same time I'm not entirely convinced of keeping. Notifying for some insight as well as Japanese insight users,  and .  SwisterTwister   talk  05:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a few Japanese news sources too, and they are in much the same vein as the English ones. Personally, I'd say this passes CORPDEPTH, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if we deleted it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to publish menus,, and that's the total contents. It even gives prices. I agree there is a certain curiosity value in a restaurant serving food to stuffed animals, but that's covered by NOTTABLOID. The Daily Mail is the place for this, not an encycopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The content is so silly, that no person with a working brain should contemplate spending the time trying to work out on exactly which level it is a hoax. Unless there is a news source which actually spent time getting to the bottom of this, and let the article become more than a "menu" (as DGG says), it is not encyclopedic content. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wish that the merit of the article is discussed on the basis of Wikipedia policies, such as its reliability, relevance, and above all, its notability. Why digress to its menus, silliness, and possibility of hoax? An encyclopaedia, to my opinion, should be as comprehensive as possible, of course, relying on good sources, including menus and prices. Chhandama (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – The topic itself is not a WP:HOAX, as per news coverage it has received from reliable sources. Its existence as an actual restaurant is also verifiable from the company's website here. Also, the article has been copy edited after the time of this nomination. Overall, the topic is notable per Wikipedia's standards (see WP:CORPDEPTH), but despite this, some people WP:MAYNOTLIKEIT. North America1000 05:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Menu does add some "charm" to the article and this isn't a hoax. However, this nothing more than a one time event.  It ran in some news media as a "news of the weird" type event. Really nothing since the initial shock.  Less than 20 Google hits for "Yawarakan’s Cafe" in the past month and most are non-reliable.  A business started up, got its 15 minutes and crickets.  NOTTABLOID Bgwhite (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2015 (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.