Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nam Vietnamese Kitchen

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. Michig (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Vietnamese Kitchen[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill local restaurant chain. Google search reveals that it exists, and has the usual vanity hits. Google search does not turn up any independent reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a local restaurant. The sole independent source, the Globe and Mail Alberta review, states a case for non-notability: "Calgary already has a handful of restaurants that fit within this realm of contemporary Vietnamese cuisine". That is insufficient for WP:NCORP or WP:GNG and searches are not finding better WP:RS sources. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single-city local restaurant chain is not automatically deemed to pass WP:NCORP just because one newspaper's restaurant critic reviewed it — getting over NCORP, or even just basic GNG, requires quite a bit more than just one piece of reliable source coverage. And no, the fact that it has its own self-published website is not evidence of notability either. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no indepedent coverage
Delete One source is not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearcat makes a convincing argument I'm on board with here. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:34, 26 October 2018 (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.