Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cafe Chambord

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Chambord

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability online, other than sources which mention the restaurant's alleged high prices in passing. HOT WUK (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely notable, a brief search (didn't look past page one) found three reliable sources: NY Times, On the Town in New York: The Landmark History of Eating, Drinking, and Entertainments from the American Revolution to the Food Revolution, and more trivially The Man Who Changed the Way We Eat: Craig Claiborne and the American Food. Oh wait The New Yorker, what is interesting is that some of the sources consider this restuarant a historic landmark. How the nominator was unable to find this is perplexing. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find Valoem's sourcing persuasive (even if both of his book links were accidentally to On the Town). The New Yorker is particularly compelling; random restaurants could not expect this sort of attention in the 1950s. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I fixed that! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Valoem's sources. Pburka (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.