Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Wok

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 City Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City Wok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:CORP (tagged since 2010), and no sources show that the in-universe restaurant in South Park episode plots is directly related to this real-world company. Any details about the in-universe City Wok from South Park is contained within that episode article's plot description. AldezD (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source I found was this, which is a press release. Keep per sources found by Taylor Trescott. Delete I apologize for flip-flopping like this, but it seems Ibadibam is right about CORPDEPTH: "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." --Cerebellum (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per these sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New sources provided fail WP:CORPDEPTH#Audience. Nor do these sources identify any notable feature about this chain; they're just routine local restaurant reviews. Ibadibam (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Failing WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't mean it doesn't fail the GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CORPDEPTH defines what qualifies as "significant coverage" for WP:GNG, as far as businesses and organizations are concerned. And WP:GNG only establishes a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. The sources presented must themselves demonstrate the subject's notability, which these don't. Ibadibam (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To nom's concern about South Park being related to it: it is, Trey Parker and Matt Stone discuss the inspiration being from the real-life chain on several commentaries. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If this can be verified, it may demonstrate that the chain has made a significant cultural contribution and is thus notable. Could you provide a source? Ibadibam (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. It's in the commentary for Jared Has Aides (read the production section) and, since commentaries are used as sources in FAs, they're probably reliable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - So it is. That's one point for keeping it. Ibadibam (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:46, 20 September 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.