Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Salt Lick
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. John254 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Salt Lick[edit]
- The Salt Lick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article has several issues, including WP:COI, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:ADVERT. Λuα (Operibus anteire) 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article does have problems with conflict of interest and advertising, and I have started to improve it by, among other things, removing the list of beverages served and the list of occupations at the restaurant. On the other hand, I have added a reference to this Texas restaurant in the form of an New York Times article which was entirely about the restaurant and its then-manager. The restaurant also has been covered in other independent sources. In addition to its Texas locations, the restaurant also has a branch in Las Vegas [1] and is in talks to open a location at the Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City. [2] So I think the restaurant is sufficiently notable to have an article here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORG states that: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". One article in the New York Times does not constitute notability. Two or three branches are not an indication of notability neither. Furthermore, all the editors -except the user who wrote the article- who expressed their opinions on the article's talkpage seem to disagree with you.
- Cheers mate!
- Λuα (Operibus anteire) 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google lists quite a few sources that show it is a regional culinary point of attraction. The article should be worked on, though. It just is not "world famous". -- Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those results -other than the NY times article- are, and am quoting Euryalus from the article's talk page are: "paid advertising, blogs or trivial mentions in travel pages." And I agree with that.
- Would someone be kind enough and tell me how this restaurant is different from others? It might be a great one but I don't think that would cut it. That's the issue here; notability.
- Cheers mate!
- Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest this Google News Archive search as an indication that there are more sources than just paid advertising, blogs, and trivial mentions in travel pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any restaurant in business for about 40 years will get its name published here or there, and as much notability a published reader's message, serving Samsung executives or even a Tribune Business News's article can give to a restaurant, I am yet to be convinced. All I am asking for is a simple statement telling what makes it stand out. There are according to one of those results "thousands of places to get barbecue in Central Texas", so again what makes this one worthy of inclusion. I don't even need a source, just explain to me in simple terms how is it notable and I will withdraw the request for deletion.
- Finally, a Google search will yield more results for other subjects that don't have their own articles.
- Cheers mate!
- Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between a Google News search and a Google web search. Some terms will show up with multiple hits on Google web search due to appearing on Wikipedia and its mirrors, but not on Google News. The example you provide ("Metropolitan90") is an example of that. [3] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do me a big favour and tell me what makes you think this restaurant is notable? How is it different than others?
- Cheers mate!
- Λuα (Operibus anteire) 06:11, 9 August 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.