Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoagie Haven (2nd nomination)

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoagie Haven

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails notability under WP:ORG. Was previously deleted multiple times. Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous AFD was in 2006. The topic appears notable and the current article is extensively sourced including numerous sources later than 2006. It appears to meet wp:GNG. What previous "multiple times" are you referring to? --Doncram (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playing devil's advocate: the page could be said not to pass WP:AUD because the coverage is all "local". However, WP:AUD is a garbage guideline that should be ignored - according to what it says even companies that have received coverage in Andorran newspapers fulfil WP:AUD but ones given coverage in "local" press of much larger areas do not fulfil WP:AUD. Additionally I see coverage at nj.com which counts as "state-wide" coverage. There might also be said to be WP:PROMO issues with this page, but I think it's as balanced as it can be. Finally I suppose it might be said to be purely WP:MILL or even WP:ROUTINE but I think the fact it's popular with students at Princeton and to some extent appears to be a cultural phenomenon to them just about gets it over the bar on that. EDIT: To state the obvious the 2006 delete decision wasn't based on policy, since the relevant policies barely existed then, and should therefore be ignored for the purposes of this discussion. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like WP:AUD doesn't mean it can just be ignored. If you really think its a "garbage guideline", then purpose that it be changed. Until then, we will follow it.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, we can decide in a AFD or RFC not to apply a particular policy, and this isn't even a policy - it's a guideline. There's a reason why WP:AUD got turned down for general application. FOARP (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really poor argument. See WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. If you actually have a legitimate reason why the guideline should not apply to this article, explain why. But telling me the guideline is garbage or that you can just arbitrarily choose to ignore it is moronic.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks. I've stated my reasons for thinking that WP:AUD should not apply - because it is a poor guideline that delivers illogical and inconsistent results (coverage in Andorran media = notable, coverage in London city media = not notable). FOARP (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack, that's a direct criticism of your argument. If you don't like the guideline, then purpose that it be changed. We have guidelines for a reason, they are not to be ignored.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "It is a legend" and the article just needs updating to record that it's now a chain. Andrew D. (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One paragraph in a book on Princeton does very little to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is as good as a feast. Personally, I wouldn't want one of their hoagies because they seem too large and overloaded. Anyway, here's another good source The New York Times. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but the New York Times has been determined to be an enemy of the state, or similar, I believe, so Wikipedia should probably not consider that a valid source. :( --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everyone from the New York Times to Teen Vogue [1] [2] says its notable. Click the Google news search link, plenty of other places mentioning it, lot to look through. Dream Focus 03:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Doncram, and because the suources exist to support it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (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.