Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy's Baking Company

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. If someone with a history of editing outside of this area wants to merge any of it into the episode article I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy's Baking Company[edit]

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

I came across this as a PROD with the following rationale: "non-notable, self-promotion. This is a small restaurant benefitting from its post-Ramsay 15 minutes of fame and the bad behavior of its owners. Nothing remotely encyclopedic about it." I initially endorsed the PROD because I feel that this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT and that it is perhaps WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article to itself. There is no prior coverage of note for this company and so far everything that has been released about the company has centered around its showing on Kitchen Nightmares. There has been some coverage of their activities immediately after the show, which aired six days ago (May 10th), but predominantly this has been about their appearance on the show and perceived behaviors. After some deliberation, I thought that it would be better to bring this to AfD where it can get a better consensus. I still believe that this ultimately falls under "one event" since it's all from the KN appearance and there has been no coverage for this place before that time, but then there has been quite a bit of coverage since then. I'd much rather bring it here and be 100% certain that it falls under one event (since I do have some hesitations) and then have something for editors to fall back on if it gets recreated before it gets any further coverage that doesn't talk solely about the show. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that we do have an article on the episode itself. If you are worried about the events immediately surrounding the episode will not be recorded somehow, this is already on Wikipedia and the episode is well covered already. For this article we should be focusing on any notability besides the episode. While that can count towards notability at the end, we should predominantly be looking at how much coverage the restaurant has received besides that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this troubles me. Obviously, it's appropriate to have an article on the Kitchen Nightmares episode entitled "Amy's Baking Company"-- something like Amy's Baking Company (TV episode). But an article on the actual business establishment (or its owners) seems premature. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't argue too hard against that. I feel silly for not thinking of that as an alternative. Have you seen the episode and feel up to writing an article for it? On a side note, I did find this blog entry on the Phoenix New Times, but I'm unsure of it as a source since it looks to be all blog and not really a RS. The ad at the top of the page for a site for sex hookups doesn't exactly give me the feeling that it's really usable. [1] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the episode article, so I suppose that this can close as nomination withdrawn, since I'll just redirect this to the episode article. I'd probably recommend keeping "episode" in the title of the article to differentiate it from an article on the actual company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it all comes down to it, isn't the episode article effectively the same as keeping this article? We're going to need to keep an eye on it to ensure that it isn't padded out with fluff not directly related to the episode, which is bound to happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. It still has to show notability, but it's easier for an episode for a television show to pass notability guidelines than would a business. You have to show that the episode has had individual coverage, which this one has had for the most part. The big difference is that we would try to keep the article only about the episode and its immediate aftermath. Right now the coverage is pretty much just about the owners' reaction to the show episode (or hackers' reaction, if you believe the owners), so it's reasonable enough to include that in the article. I'm not opposed to a general discussion over this, though. I think it's better to hash this stuff out as much as possible now and have an easy answer to fall back on later. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I would be very uncomfortable with this being withdrawn until I, as original nominator, have the opportunity to weigh in on the whole situation. I'm also uncomfortable with a too-speedy decision making being made during a time period that is overnight for the U.S., when the editors who would have seen the episode are largely asleep. We need to slow this down considerably and give the discussion over both articles a little time.

I used the "15 minutes" metaphor for a reason. If you look at Kitchen Nightmares, Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and the Food Network's comparable show Restaurant Impossible, there are probably 75-100 restaurants the three shows have worked with, none of which merit their own article. Other than the fact that the authors behaved like jackasses on social media, then lied about their accounts having been hacked, what makes a small, failing Arizona restaurant notable, or for that matter, makes the episode notable? Substance of the article? Ramsay arrives, Ramsay trashes food and restaurant, owners get defensive, Ramsay yells, owners yell back, Ramsay yells louder and gives them a reality check. It's the standard format to this point, and has been for six seasons. The only difference is that this time, the owners refused to listen, he left and they took to social media and produced a string of obscenity-laden garbage over the course of a few days. Where's the notability for either article? You take the crap on social media out of the equation, and this is just a small, insignificant restau-rant in a strip mall in Arizona, and a TV episode on ratings-challenged show, with a stunt ending designed to land at the end of the ratings sweeps period. This doesn't rise above the level of minor tabloid coverage, thus the dicey sources. It certainly doesn't merit an article, whether it be about the restaurant or the episode. --Drmargi (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hard to ignore the impact of the episode. If nothing else, the episode and its direct aftermath are being covered by the business journals who are looking at the "brand meltdown" effect in this case. Forbes phoenix businss journal, International Business Times.

I think it's reasonable for us to try to draw a line against including things not clearly related to the internationally broadcast episode-- try to limit coverage to their "15 mins", rather than making the business owners notable people who have a perpetual biography. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact isn't notability. They're a novelty on a slow news day, more notable for the obscenities and the lies than anything of substance. Khloe Kardashian's braces are getting comparable coverage. The electronic media, be they hard news (which is ignoring the whole thing), business news or tabloids are fickle creatures, and will move on quickly. Once they do, Amy's will quickly go out of business and its foul-mouthed owners be forgotten, while the episode becomes an asterisk in the overall history of a show that never drew more than 5 million viewers. There's simply nothing notable about either article, and I'm tempted to go nominate the episode article for deletion right now. --Drmargi (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article (actually the page existed before, but as just a redirect into Kitchen Nighmares; I didn't write the "Controversy" section and don't have an opinion on that) so I'm reluctant to vote just yet. But I mean yeah the place is notable now. It surely passes the WP:GNG. It's been covered (as a newsworthy item, not just a review) in the Washington Post, the International Business Times, Forbes, HuffPost, and basically all the local Phoenix media. And it's not done yet. That's pretty notable for a restaurant. And its deep coverage, full articles not just passing mentions. Granted its basically for one incident, but still. Per WP:CORP it passes, but per WP:1E maybe not (technically WP:1E is for individuals, but can probably apply here). Then there's the WP:BLP issue of whether we want to pile on the Bouzaglos. But if we write the article fairly I suppose that'd be OK, maybe. Dunno. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh OK I just saw Amy's Baking Company (TV episode). Hmmm I'm not sure that that's an improvement if we're going to cover the entity at all. There's more to the place then just the incident -- it's a successful bistro, and according to Phoenix Magazine it's a pretty good feed, albeit expensive, and in the interest of not making the whole enterprise look like a freak show we ought to include stuff like that, and if we shoehorn stuff like that into Amy's Baking Company (TV episode) (which already is more about the various offshoots of the TV episode than the episode itself) we might as well just keep the original title. The articles would need to be merged of course. (Also BTW and FWIW it's my understanding that we're de facto pretty easygoing regarding articles about individual restaurants -- User:Cirt, for instance, used to put up articles about real holes-in-the-wall and while I didn't much like that the articles were certainly kept; maybe that's changed, don't know. But I mean Vic's Ice Cream and yadda yadda -- sandwich shops and whatnot. Granted WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a deprecated argument, but we ought to be reasonably consistent.) Herostratus (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The episode article is sufficient. The restaurant and its owners are not notable, even here in Phoenix. They are in the public eye at the moment, but that will fade quickly once they go out of business. It is no different than any other social media artifact or Internet meme (Sweet Brown - oh, that is a red link). The only thing anyone will be talking about years from now regarding this will be the TV show appearance, if even that. --NMChico24 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage to satisfy WP:NOTE. — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notoriety is not notability. And this one is notorious. Restaurants that are small, but local landmarks have local notability. This one is only gained the interest of editors because of a pair of potty-mouthed owners trying to get their own back (or extend the fraud) took to social media when Gordon Ramsay walked out on them. The so-called "deep" coverage is about how to use, or in their case, not use, social media in business applications or about the latest laughing stock behavior by a couple idiots who disengaged their brains and hit the internet, with peripheral mention of the episode, and even less about the restaurant. If anything, this is a small chapter in the life of Facebook, nothing more. But notable? In no possible way. --Drmargi (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like the best response here. This isn't really a notable restaurant - temporarily becoming the subject of a great deal of internet attention isn't the same thing as lasting notability, and having its article almost entirely about the recent bad publicity seems to raise NPOV and BLP issues. Merging to Amy's Baking Company (TV episode) is a possible compromise solution, but I don't think it really works: articles on TV episodes should be about the episodes themselves, not information about people connected with them. That one's straying off-topic as it is (and raises its own notability concerns besides). Robofish (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This place doesn't deserve its own article (and if the Kitchen Nightmares episode is honest it doesn't deserve its customers). Rename the article about the KN episode to this (if it is deemed notable enough). Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single event. I don't see evidence of enduring notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Localized, single event that owes its notoriety to an episode of a TV show and will be soon forgotten. Ross Fraser (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just flash in the pan -- the place is only important insofar as it was part of an episode of Kitchen Nightmares. No notability at all here. 24.131.255.12 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the creator of the original redirect. I don't object to having an article on the episode, but there's no enduring notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. A thrush (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question, if the article is deleted, what is the proper fate of Amy's Baking Company (TV episode)? The two articles cover sort of the same ground. My reading of most of the "delete" votes above indicates that it too should be deleted. If not, a merge with redirect may be order; but it looks to me that most commentors are indicating that both articles should be deleted. I invite the person closing to consider the intent of the commentors and, if the decision is to delete, to consider deleting both articles. Herostratus (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete both. The episode article has the same problem as this one: absent the bad behavior of the owners after the episode, the episode is entirely non-notable; with their behavior, it's WP:ONEEVENT notoriety--Drmargi (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Separate AFDs required-- only one article here has been nominated for deletion. Amy's Baking Company (TV episode) is its own article-- if it's to be deleted, nominate it, place the appropriate templates on the page, and let that process run its course. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, a consensus to delete here can't be taken as a consensus to delete that article. I'd be inclined to delete it as well, but the arguments involved could be slightly different, so a separate AFD would be required. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biggie though is that the episode has received quite a bit of coverage in the media. I'll have to try to go through all of the additional sources that have been added to the article for the episode since I last looked at it, but there has been coverage and the standards for TV episodes isn't exactly the same as for companies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is aware that the deletion of the episode article requires a separate AfD, but discussion of whether that should happen is inevitable here. This is a garbage in-garbage out pair of articles that should never have been created. --Drmargi (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The episode and meltdown are notable the restaurant (by itself) is not. Therefore it should be merged into the episode article. --George100 (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete I think it should be deleted if it is only going to serve as a hub for the haters and yelpers to pull another reddit type lynching and blood libel. Who would really be willing to do the reverts if it comes down to that? As such it might be better just to get rid of it. If it develops noteworthy-ness beyond what has happened with Kitchen Nightmares then it can be revisited. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the big things I've been worried about, although we can't really delete based on something being a vandalism target. We can only watch and try to ensure that it doesn't turn into such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to the episode article, with reservations Aside from a 2010 incident involving a review on Yelp, the business pretty much has gotten into the spotlight because of the 2013 Kitchen Nightmares episode. This alone kills the notability aspect of the article. However, I strongly disagree with some editors rationale that a TV episode article can survive a better review of notability. Many TV episodes on Wikipedia exist with references only noting the ratings and a critic review or two. THATS IT. How they survive the ridiculous scrutiny of Wikipedia is mind boggling. In order for this article to survive, there needs to be abit more meat to the article. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple secondary sources in the article for two things regarding the restaurant that have nothing to do with the TV episode:

Garnering positive reviews from when it was spotlighted on Check, Please!.
Gaining publicity after a blogger posted a negative review on Yelp, and one of the owners responded to it in a vitriolic manner that was deemed inappropriate by the blogger and other users.

Both of these things occurred before the Kitchen Nightmares episode, and are independently supported by secondary sources. Because of these three separate incidents, the restaurant is notable. Nightscream (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? An online review from the unwashed public that any hot dog stand can get (and better), and a minor regional PBS restaurant show gives this article sufficient notability? This is an article in search of an excuse to keep it. --Drmargi (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The online review is not the source, nor the reason for notability. It's the publicity the restaurant received because of the way the owner responded to it, which was covered by KTVK, which I made clear above. Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? There's nothing notable about this "restaurant" in any way. The only thing notable here is the episode of Kitchen Nightmares. A jellyfish could see that. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, almost half of the material in the History section has nothing to do with the KN episode. Nightscream (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple articles from the Washington Post for an Arizona restaurant is notability.[2][3] And the Huffington Post. [4] And the Philadelphia Business Journal [5]. And Forbes [6]. That's a lot. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of people who misbehave. Not all of them warrant a wikipedia article - and the keyboard warriors who latched on to this don't need another forum to rail against them. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to episode. Not notable. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Amy's Baking Company (TV episode), don't simply delete as this article has useful sources. But restaurant is not notable outside of context of show. --George100 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was notable in 2010 when they decided to respond to yelp comments. There's a lot they've done to their reputation beyond the episode. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beyond the episode they did, they are definetely noteworthy in their own right. Merging it into the 'Reactions' section of the article for the episode itself would be clutter. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. George100 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Reddit kerfuffle does not confer notability, but the the dozens of other articles about the restaurant do. I've got some pretty strong deletionist tendencies, but this AfD doesn't make any sense to me. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still a 'redirect to episode article' !vote, but I must admit, the amount of sustained news coverage has surprised me, particularly in how the focus has shifted beyond the episode to things like on-going legal proceedings. This may, perhaps, merit a RELIST to see if the news coverage is going to die down or pick up. My gut still says REDIRECT, however. --08:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Merge any 'aftermath' issues into the tv show article and just summarize. we don't need a blow by blow account of every tweet, fb post, amy and samy's trouble with the law, etc. Soosim (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. with all of the action around this, it is a cultural event worth documenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.89.202 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2013 (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.