Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Laundry

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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW; nomination appears to have been either a misjudgment or was trying to make a point. --MCB (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French Laundry

Product advertisement (spam) -- none of the claims are backed up. --Jtmain—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmain (talk • contribs) 03:09, April 27, 2008— Jtmain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Keep: This restaurant is routinely considered one of the best in the world. I wrote a fair portion of it (much of which has been lost to subsequent edits) based on research when I discovered the restaurant's reputation. I spent more than six months attempting to get a reservation, and subsequently had perhaps my most memorable meal there. It's true the article is weak on citations, but that's easily fixed. It should not be deleted. —EncMstr (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Five simple words: best restaurant in the world. According to the ton of exclusive coverage by reliable sources available, this is indubitably the single most respected U.S. restaurant currently operating, nationally and internationally. What's more, lack of verification for an obviously notable subject is never an acceptable deletion rationale. VanTucky 05:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The nominator's only two edits are to do this AFD. Jtmain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) WP:ADVERT is not a criterion for deletion when the article is not an obvious COI spam job. To quote the guideline: "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view." Very very notable restaurant. I've been reading Service Included and the entire premise of this memoir is the notability of French Laundry.[1] Katr67 (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The French Laundry is an obvious restaurant that merits attention which has been recognized by US national organizations such as Zagat, and then internationally by the Michelin Guide. It has also been recognized by multiple magazines and other organizations.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - your reasoning for deleting this article is particularly poor. Citations are easily located and added, and the article does not contain advertising and associated phraseology. It easily conforms to the 4 standards of inclusion, as stated previously.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Some shack run by an absentee chef. The name says it all. Supposed to be the best restaurant in the world even though they serve French food.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a Wikipedia guideline for deleting the article? Your assertion amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not that it matters, but the food is not "French food"; it spans the world, though it is its own interpretation of French haute cuisine. —EncMstr (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep 3 Michelin Stars, on nearly every list of top restaurants in the world, this article meets every standard for inclusion. Claims are backed up by the awards listed and references provided. This nomination borders on vandalism. The nominator has made exactly 1 contribution, this nomination. Is this a case of WP:SOCK?--Rtphokie (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Rec to Keep: Notoriety alone merits retention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.204.168 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (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.