Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green restaurants

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. copyvios are bad and if the article is irredemably bad then deleting and starting again is a well established process. So delete this but specifically encourge the creation of a properly sourced article at this location Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green restaurants[edit]

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

How-to guide with little encyclopedic content and no indication of notability Mean as custard (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course being "green" is a good thing for a restaurant, as for any other human endeavour, but not really notable as a topic. Same as "inexpensive restaurant" of "green drug store" would not be. Or any other combination of adjective and noun unless some new meaning is created beyond that of each word. Borock (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (even though I am a greenie!) per all the above comments. There may be, however, room for a Sustainability in the food service industry article at some point in the future. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is mostly a collection of copyright violations. Each citation in the article points to the website from which the content was copied or paraphrased. However, despite copyright violations, the article is about a non-notable intersection of Environmentalism and Restaurant. SnottyWong ^babble 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The green restaurant concept is quite notable and I have cited a couple of encyclopedia to demonstrate this. The article title would be better as Green restaurant per WP:SINGULAR. Any objections if I move it, as part of the process of clean up and improvement? Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before trying to decide if something is notable or not, its best to spend a brief moment clicking on the Google news search at the top of the AFD. Notice that many news sources have covered this concept, they thus notable enough for a Wikipedia article about them. 265 results. Just read through the titles and the summaries and some stand out right away. Like the one from the Houston Chronicle titled The Haven of green restaurants. Dream Focus 17:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ~~WP:HOWTO~~ WP:NOTHOWTO guide. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC) [link to policy fixed.... Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC) ][reply]

We expect reasoned and policy-based argument here, please, not vague waves to non-policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[... and tendentious, snarky, WP:AGF-violative comment laughed at: ROFLMAO, I would have thought it would be perfectly obvious that I did not mean Category:Wikipedia how-to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

No, it is not obvious what your hand-waving means. NOTHOWTO is a stylistic point. The same section also says that we shouldn't use academic language or style but we would not delete on that account because it is possible to rewrite to improve the style. In this case, the instructional style seems fairly minor and fixing this is just a matter of copy editing so that the article states the plain facts. There is nothing about the topic which makes it impossible to present in an encyclopedic style and I have cited two encyclopedia to demonstrate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pervasively a how-to guide. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository for how-to guides. This means that this article should not be there. It is of course possible to write a completely new article in its place. This however would be 'destroying the village in order to save it', not 'rescuing' it. WP:NOTHOWTO is part of WP:NOT and thus P-O-L-I-C-Y! I know that many inclusionists like to pretend that the only part of WP:NOT that exists is WP:NOTPAPER, but it does contain other policy content. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Here are a selection of sources for this topic:

B. Lorenzini, B (1994), "The green restaurant", Restaurant & Institutions, 104 (11): 119–36
Hsin-Hui Hu; H.G. Parsa; John Self (August 2010), "The Dynamics of Green Restaurant Patronage", Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51 (3): 344–362, doi:10.1177/1938965510370564
J. Carbonara (2007), "Foodservice goes green", Foodservice Equipment and Supplies, 60 (9): 48–54
E. Elan (18 February 2009), "Chains growing green efforts despite economy", Nation’s Restaurant News
B. Horovitz (19 May 2008), "Can restaurants go green?", USA Today

Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notable topic disguised by crap article: Nomination should not be as to notability, because you can't just assume topic isn't notable. This nom is deja vu of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amish furniture in that respect, marketing copy ruining a topic that has been the subject of coverage. I propose stubbing this and merging Green Restaurant Certification into it. I would do it now but don't want to get everyone going crazy like happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that deleting everything except the lead would improve this article immensely. Most everything below the lead is either a blatant copyvio or a very close paraphrase. SnottyWong ^speak 21:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic, but eliminate a lot of duplicate information with a summary of, and section hatnote to Green building. It needs a major copyedit into an encyclopedic voice ("It's no secret that..." Really?), eliminate the external spam links found in the body text, summarize any information already in other articles that is not specific to restaurants, and we might have a useful article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but I just glanced through this article and it is horrendous. Without even considering the copyright problems, the writing is atrocious. Any individual sentence could probably be fixed, but the hours it would take to improve this article might well be better spent starting from scratch. "The more obvious way of illuminating you restaurant is the sun." Seriously?--SPhilbrick T 23:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As was argued above, the topic in its own right might well be notable--there's even an association of green restaurants (dinegreen.com). But the article IS atrocious, no doubt about that--a combination of a manual and a bunch of synthesis. And how to improve this? A clean slate is best, though if someone walks by with a blunt ax and prunes it (and then keeps an eye on it) I would be happy as well. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, out in California green restaurants have been making news for years. Chez Panisse is a god example of teaching communities to be more organic and self-sustainnig. The article need better writing though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blldggr (talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic is obviously notable. The big problem is the copyvio/plagiarism issue. If that has been fixed, the article should be kept and improved. If it hasn't been fixed, then I could go either way on this; either keep and fix, or burn to the ground and rebuild. Cardamon (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2010 (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.