Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yia Yia Mary's

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. Consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to prove notability, even if it wasn't present in the article form at the start of the AfD Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yia Yia Mary's[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)

Unfortunate that it closed this year, but no indication what makes this notable per WP:NCORP among the hundreds of restaurants in Houston. Sources found are passing mentions and routine business listings and local reviews expected for any dining establishment of its type. Reywas92^Talk 00:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 00:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 00:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, you add a "Description" section that paraphrases the one paragraph at Houstonia Magazine's listing, but they have this same generic local restaunt listing for hundreds and hundreds of restaurants in the Houston area. How does this bestow notability? That's what culture magazines do in every city in the country: they review many restaurants for their readers and provide a routine listing for many more. This fails WP:AUD and it is not encyclopedic to have articles on every local restaurant because local magazines comment on it like any other. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at potential sourcing, not just the few used in the stub, when nominating. I've promoted 15 restaurant articles to Good status in the last couple months, and I think there's enough sourcing to do the same here. I'll see what I can put together ASAP. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I see one substantive review about the restaurant, the rest being passing mentions or about its owner Pappas Restaurants. This relies heavily on that, again a WP:Routine review the Chronicle does for hundreds and hundreds of WP:Local restaurants for a Houston WP:AUDience, the rest being a combination of little snippets that read as a WP:REFBOMB, with many being typical guidebook mentions among many other restaurants. Reywas92^Talk 07:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). I'm currently working to expand the article and I still have quite a few sources to incorporate. Reywas92 can keep saying there's no there there, but I see otherwise and haven't even attempted to access the Houston Chronicle archives. I'll keep working on this, but in the future, I wish Reywas92 would raise concerns on Talk pages before forcing editors to scramble to expand articles just to save from AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! More bare passing mentions in the local paper! "The 10 Greatest Greek Restaurants in Houston" are all of them getting articles? (likewise for their lists of Thai, soup, and New American too) "Where to Eat at William P. Hobby Airport (HOU)" Looks like seven of https://www.pappas.com/restaurants/ are there: this restaurant in particular isn't notable, Pappas Restaurants is. "Pappas Restaurants Sued Over Wage Disputes" seems like the chain is the topic that should be covering this. In fact, almost the entirety of the History section can just be moved to the company article, but please not copied and pasted to all nine of their restaurants.
  The article quotes the one paragraph "Insiders' Guide to Houston" gives it, but they list 130 restaurants, and Wikipedia need not duplicate travel guides. "8 New Houston Restaurants to Try This Fall". Are all of them getting articles? (and the new ones in the summer?) "Reader's Dining Survey results" a passing mention that it was "receiving nods" as one of 37 new restaurants. "Gayest & Greatest: 15th Annual Readers' Choice Awards" gave it a finalist for Greek, along with 125 other restaurants that particular year, are they all getting articles? I've hardly seen a better WP:REFBOMB: one local review, 26 comprehensive listings, bare acknowledgements, or content about the ownership chain, not the restaurant itself. These same minimal-context sources could be a template for dozens of articles about standard eating establishments, just replace what's on the menu.
  How about do Chapultepec Lupita next? One review in the local weekly does not establish notability, and my concern is that you create dozens of articles failing to pass the GNG with multiple significant sources. Being one of 47 local Mexican restaurants with their salsa judged is not the basis for an article, or really even worth mentioning in an encyclopedia at all. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reywas92, I'm not going to go back and forth with you. We've both stated our positions. Again, I've written lots of Good articles about restaurants, many of which use similar readers' polls, reviews by local food critics, "best of" lists, etc. You think the page is junk, and I think the page makes a nice short Wikipedia entry. I'll let others take over from here... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, coverage about restarants varies, but none of the sources or content here shows that this was anything but a regular old Greek restaurant. Articles should be written from the position that there are multiple significant sources therefore it's notable; not that it's notable, how many passing mentions are out there? Reywas92^Talk 18:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd also say the Houston Chronicle is more than just a local paper. The newspaper is the third-largest by Sunday circulation in the United States, as of 2016. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        And??? The New York Times has a local section too, not everything they write about needs their own encyclopedia article. They have a huge number of NYC restaurant reviews but that's not the basis for an article here. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I see I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, so I'll just move on to other tasks. Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any problem with this article. Passes WP:GNG on the need for "multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources;" not all sources here are passing mentions. Gerald WL 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're leaving out the "significant coverage" part of GNG there! Only cite 1 is significant and actually about the restaurant itself rather than the ownership. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reywas92, That's not even true. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to have this article deleted. You've initiated the nomination and forced me to drop what I was doing to rescue the entry, now please let others weigh in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is still true, because that's not even in the article. I'll concede this will likely be kept, but what would be nice is if at time of nomination this wasn't a sad three sentences merely stating its existence. If these articles somehow asserted notability beyond a link to a routine review in the local paper in the first place, they wouldn't need to be "rescued". Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reywas92, Sure, and it'd also be nice if you practiced WP:BEFORE. Don't just say something's not notable because you've assessed the few sources used to create a stub... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Reywas92: Do you only "concede this will likely be kept", or are you willing to retract your nomination since the article has been expanded? I'd like to get the banner removed sooner than later, if you're willing to change your vote. In fact, I've nominated the article for Good status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except I did practice Before, but I don't consider the directory listings and multiple news articles listing it among those closing that came up to contribute to notability. Google doesn't always return 14-year-old reviews in even the first few pages. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Reywas92, I'll ask again, are you willing to retract your nomination? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like WP:BEFORE wasn't done. A simple Google search brings up dozens of relevant RS hits, including standalone coverage like this. Armadillo pteryx 23:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been greatly improved since nomination. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2020 (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.