Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Asia Cafe

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 of the debate was delete. Babajobu 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Asia Cafe

• Delete: Non-notable cafe. Sounds like small music venues that exist dozens-at-a-time in every community in the civilized world. Not sure what happened with the reviews. That's a joke perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google search for All Asia Cafe yields 9,310,000 hits, which is a sure sign of notability. Royboycrashfan 05:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note. Those words are common. Google search for "All Asia Cafe" (with quotes) yields 23,600 hits. This is still a lot, but considerably less than allowing all pages not to have the exact phrase. --Karnesky 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Another one of those Cambridge, Massachusetts articles that've been popping up on AfD during the past few days. While there are references to this venue (i.e., even the more specific +"all asia cafe"+cambridge yields 12,400 hits), the article itself reads more like a restaurant review than an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Kinu 05:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While I completely agree with the second sentence of the nomination, I don't think that makes it non-notable or non-encyclopedic. Perhaps I am becoming an inclusionist, but it's an institution in its area, and that's good enough for me. bikeable (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the menu and (unsourced, evidently fake) reviews as unhelpfully unencyclopedic, leaving us with a small stub. bikeable (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not every small café deserves their own article. Furthermore, the precedent seems to be to delete articles on small local businesses even if they have local notability (I remember a couple such articles about restaurants in Princeton coming to AfD; I voted "weak keep" on both and I think they both failed.) I'm sure this café is less notable than those places. On top of that, I think a lot of bars and cafés here in Minneapolis will get a high google number because they're listed on a lot of local venue sites, band sites and other such crud. Nonetheless, the only such venues in Minneapolis that deserve an article are probably the Quest (venue) and First Avenue. I would hate to see thousands of local café articles and this could set a really bad precedent. Grandmasterka 06:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; seems pretty clear-cut to me. Melchoir 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly no encyclopaedic information to be had here. WP:NOT a travel guide. --Malthusian (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete ... I can attest that this cafe is known, but not exactly an "institution in its area." It's perhaps worthy of mentioning in an article on Cambridge nightlife, but it doesn't need its own article unless someone can find more interesting info on it. Mangojuice 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bikeable Lyo 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable TigerShark 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. Stifle 11:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bikeable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}15:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't see where this place is an "an institution in its area" as Bikeable said. The links on the article certainly don't support that. In fact, the Boston.com link is just a little review page where three of the four reviews are "Poor"! That sounds more like a place on the verge of shutting down. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 16:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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.