Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omakase

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. — neuro^(talk) 19:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omakase

It must be dictionary definition season. Except we're not a dictionary service. Oh, and "stuffwhitepeoplelike.com" is definitely not a reliable source! coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a cuisine-related stub that does have potential to expand beyond a mere dictionary definition. Both of my favorite books on sushi have Omakase in their indices... I'll try to come back to this article in the next few days when I'm not too hungry for sushi to think straight. Yum. Newsaholic (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing is nonideal, but it's not contentious or potentially problematic and is a legitimate encyclopaedic subject. WilyD 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...according to who? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... eh? It's a subject which can be covered in an encyclopaedic fashion, for instance one might expect to find it in this encyclopaedia. Wily D 03:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This term really exists. I think that best sources are in Japanese and the Wikipedia doesn't need all sources in English. Zero Kitsune (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept is notable in the same way that buffet is. This has a similar potential for expansion. --Polaron | Talk 16:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The food-related information could easily be merged into sushi, and the Amazon.com reference could be merged into the Amazon.com article. There is no reason to have this article here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply only to sushi. --Polaron | Talk 18:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If it could be expanded, I'd feel stronger about it. Now, it's more a definition than an encyclopedia article. Geoff (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially following the recent enhancements of the article. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2008 (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.