Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Nugget Pancake House

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Nugget Pancake House

Non notable company, fails WP:Corp Nuttah68 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I see you went ahead and retagged this before I had a chance to finish my explanations on the talk page. You're obviously not from Chicago, otherwise you wouldn't have tagged this as not notable.

  In the first place, it's NOT a company. It's a chain of independently owned restaurants.

  In the second place, it's one of the most recognized restaurants in the city of Chicago. For another example of this, see Harold's Chicken Shack

  Therefore, stating that it fails WP:Corp, is irrelevant, as it's not a corporation.

  Here are my comments from the talk page.

  I object to the deletion of this article for the following reason: Tagging this as spam is misguided. I'm not associated with any of the restaurants, and if the person who added the template lived in Chicago, they would not have tagged this article. The restaurants are notable in local Chicago culture. I see MANY articles about other restaurants.

  Therefore, I disagree with the deletion of this article. I have deleted the "suggest delete" template in accordance with the specifications IN the template. Please read the following, which I have copied directly from it:

  You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

  Please do not re-add the template and do not try to speedy-delete my hard work. The article is short, but NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED rather than deleted. TheQuandry 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • WP:CORP applies to all companies, including franchises. If the franchise is as notable as you claim, you should be able to cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. If you fail to do so, you will have not made an argument for keeping the article. Uncle G 17:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hostile tone of author suggests actual non-notability. If actually notable, sources should be able to be cited quickly. --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 6 restaurants in Chicago, no indication of notability other than longevity (~35 years). 545 GHits. As near as I can tell, they are all by-the-numbers entries in restaurant directories. - Richfife 16:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I'm willing to wait a couple of months to see what develops (per below). - Richfife 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• "Hostile tone of author?" What does my personality have to do with the notability of this article? Seriously, sometimes this site is ridiculous. So if it doesn't have a pile of hits on google, it's worthless?

  In fact, here is an interesting comment made by User:Uncle G on his own talk page Counting Google hits isn't research.

  Like I've said before, talk to anyone from Chicago and they'll tell you how notable this is. TheQuandry 18:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia content must not require that readers travel to Chicago and interview people firsthand in order to verify it, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. You've been asked to cite sources. This is your only argument. Conspicuously failing to cite sources, as you are doing, will only lead everyone else to the conclusion that there are no sources to cite. Don't think that this is the first time that anyone has tried the arguments that you are using. People have made such arguments in the past, failed to cite sources, and ended up with articles deleted as a result. Once again: Please cite sources. Uncle G 19:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware of what others have attempted to do. I have provided two references, comprising reviews and comments by Chicagoans. You have to read through them. TheQuandry 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The "sources" you provided themselves are not verifiable, and they don't actually give any indication of notability. You can find reviews for most restaurants in most majors cities online; it doesn't mean that all of them are notable. --Nlu (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The evidence wasn't in the fact that they were reviews, but in the commentary provided by some 17 different people. You asked me to offer proof of notability, and I provided links to people discussing just that. Nevertheless, you might as well just delete the article. I can tell by your tone that nothing I provide is going to make a difference. TheQuandry 22:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
        • So by extension, if I can get 17 people to add comments to my talk page, I'm notable? - Richfife 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
          • You missed the point. Please just delete the article as you see fit. This will be my last statement on this topic. TheQuandry 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Most of the Yelp comments predate this article, so it's not like TheQuandry's been canvassing for it. Zagalejo 05:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. This is a chain of significant interest to Chicago culture and this article was, I'm sure, written in good faith. I'd like to see it fixed up (as it stands, as the writer pointed out, it is no worse than Harold's Chicken Shack). Unfortunately we have scared off the author by AfDing his article while he was still dealing with the prod, so it is unlikely to be fixed up. This was what he was objecting to rather than the tag itself. Dekimasu 01:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the chain is also active in Dayton, and has gotten a little press coverage here as something that Bush did to show he was in touch with local culture, and non-news sources show Kerry went there as well. This isn't enough to hang an article on, but I'm disappointed that the potential for fixing it up is gone. Dekimasu 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'm from Chicago. Everyone who's lived here has certainly heard of Golden Nugget*, even if there is nothing terribly interesting about it. And since Chicagoans are particularly enthusiastic about their local restuarant chains, I say keep. Wikipedia is not paper. :) (*This isn't the sort of thing I can actually verify, but I think the Yelp comments do suggest that some people feel strongly about this place.) Zagalejo 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that the restaurant used to be called Yankee Doodle Dandy ([1]) , and based on a look through the Chicago Trib archives, Yankee Doodle Dandy once had 27 locations. Give me some time to look into this before pulling the trigger. I think 27 locations would be large enough to confer notabilty. Zagalejo 06:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, if you play around with the search terms, you should be able to read that entire article. (Keep running searches for the last phrase per excerpt.) And I think this article is another step to conferring notability, as the place seemed to have been an important place for certain Chicago subcultures in the 1970s. Zagalejo 06:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Richfife and nom. It is a corporation, and therefore is also subject to WP:CORP, which it seems to fail. --Storkk 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there are some newspaper articles available which are actually about the restaurant, and not just directory listings. Zagalejo 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note I think this article raises the issue of "known" versus "notable". I expect that most Chicagoans know about Golden Nugget Pancake House, just like most Berkeleyites know about, say, La Val's pizza (insert name of your local diner / pizza joint here), but they wouldn't shed a tear if they were all replaced by IHOPs. Does that make them Wikipedia worthy? I don't think so. - Richfife 19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think they would cry, and I think that's part of the issue. Usually I stay away from these kinds of arguments because of the risk that I'm biased; here, that's not the case. The article simply doesn't assert the notability that the restaurants have, and that's unfortunate. I'm still voting for delete. Dekimasu 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think broad familiarity represents a kind of nobility. And I'm not sure if it's fair to compare a restaurant chain in Chicago with one in Berkeley -- there are almost thirty times as many people in the former than there are in the latter, and thus many more potential customers. (Although I don't think it would be egregiously bad to have an article on LaVal's, too. But I'm an inclusionist.) Zagalejo 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, weakly. Golden Nugget is only in Chicago, but is a restaurant chain and formerly had many more franchises than it does today-- there are numerous "Golden ____" restaurants in Chicago, like the Golden Angel on Lincoln and Montrose and the Golden Apple on Lincoln near Foster that were once Golden Nugget restaurants (many still have the iconic mush of yellow lights on top of the sign). It's also been featured in the Reader more than once as a Chicago "icon", but I don't have refs handy. siafu 18:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note Contrary to what was stated above, I was able to locate 7 Golden Nuggets in Chicago with a cursory google search, not just 6. siafu 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to change my vote to keep if anyone will actually go and fix the article. Dekimasu 07:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd clean it up if I could, but it might take a while, as there are a lot of facts I'd like to get straightened out. After doing some searching through the Chicago Tribune archives, I have to admit I'm no longer sure about the connection between Golden Nugget and Yankee Doodle Dandy. I found an advertisement listing all of the Yankee Doodle Dandy Restaurants in Chicago, and only one corresponds to a present-day Golden Nugget (or "Golden restaurant", in general). Thus, it seems likely that a Golden Nugget just happened to take over the spot of a Yankee Doodle Dandy, and is not part of the same restaurant chain with a different name.

However, I did find some evidence from Tribune listings to support siafu's comments about the other Golden restaurants in Chicago having once been Golden Nuggets. For example, there was a Golden Nugget listed at the same address as the present day Golden Angel (4344 N Lincoln Ave). I also found an ad for one Golden Nugget dating back to 1966, which means the chain is at least 40 years old. (That advertisement also referred to Golden Nugget as a "national chain," so perhaps the Dayton restaurant is somehow connected.)

So, overall, I think there's some potential for an article here, but we might have to do some digging to verify all the facts. I think it's best to give the article a few months, as suggested below, and then bring it back to AfD to see if it passes. Zagalejo 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. It seems to have potential to be an article on an important part of culture of the 3rd largest city in the 3rd largest country in the world. I would be open to reviewing the article in a few months to make sure that such an assertation has been properly made. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've cleaned it up as much as I can with what I have available, so take a look, if you wish. I think I can find more to say about the place if I do some searching. Zagalejo 06:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep following the changes. Dekimasu 06:36, 14 October 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.