Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat's Hubba Hubba
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus and the article will therefore be kept. DES (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pat's Hubba Hubba
nn restaurant 336 google entries most from phone books etc Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable, and just about as notable as your local high school, which always gets kept, so no sense deleting this. — Phil Welch 01:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is a restaurant there are hundreds of thousands of those out there Question is does we want an article on those hundreds of thousands of restaurants. --JAranda | yeah 01:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- And that, my friends, is the best argument I've heard lately for deleting non-notable high schools. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion, even though it is continually used as such. -- Reinyday, 21:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- And that, my friends, is the best argument I've heard lately for deleting non-notable high schools. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is a restaurant there are hundreds of thousands of those out there Question is does we want an article on those hundreds of thousands of restaurants. --JAranda | yeah 01:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, I don't consider "well, we have x, and y is as worthless as x" a good reason to keep: less worthless stuff is good in my books. Lord Bob
- Delete per nominator unless someone can show independent importance. Phil, the WP consensus reasoning has been that high schools (not necessarily schools for younger kids) are a major nontrivial part of people's lives, form large ongoing communities that take an interest in sports teams and budget votes, are verifiable in terms of not just existing but having their issues widely discussed in print, and so forth. The consensus has been that restaurants (and stores, malls, and most other commercial operations) aren't in the same class of importance, and (partly to avoid advertising) WP keeps their articles only if some broad notability is verified. Barno 05:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Kewp 06:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marskell 10:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Just because there are useless articles about boring highschools in here, doesn't mean we should keep adding new articles (I'll be taking a look at useless articles about educational institutions which can be merged, i.e. TAFE in australia, if it'll make you feel better). alf 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Dottore So 11:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- KeepThis place is a landmark and has cult status. Its not just some restaurant. Whats with comment after my post? Im just a guy who edited this page and my name is Tom. I'm not registered because I wanted to provide useful information, unlike "per nom" before an entry gets deleted by people who don't know anything about it. Since when is Google the be all and end all for posts on Wikipedia? If thats the case, then why does Wikipedia even exist? Also, what does "beware of socks" mean? If you have something to say, then say it, or is Wikipedia just about some elite group of insiders who use some kind of WikiSpeak to get rid of entries they simply dont know about or dont like? Like Biermacht mentioned, Pat's has been written upn in the New York Times, as well as commented on on espn.com. I've been to Pat's, I've talked about Pat's. To some people it's legendary. I have no financial gain whatsoever to Pat's being listed on Wikipedia. If you have a valid entry to make, then say it. If you think this should be deleted "per nom" than take the time to support "nom"'s argument, otherwise, shut up. Tom 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC) this user has made no edits ... not even to this page?
- Keep Listen here, college boy. I'll hit you in the balls 336 times, and then you tell me that's not a lot of hits. Pat's is a landmark and a very formative part of my youth and that of many of the people that grew up in the Port Chester community.IkeVandergraaf 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)user's only edit
- Keep I am the author of this article. It is noteworthy, verifiable and doesn't fall under any of Wikipedia's categories of problems that require deletion. Nom's statment that "It is a restaurant there are hundreds of thousands of those out there Question is does [sic] we want an article on those hundreds of thousands of restaurants" is unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia's own policies ("Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page"). Furthermore, any contention that this article is advertising is contradicted by the lack of an address or phone number in the article, and the fact that the business doesn't even operate under the name "Pat's Hubba Hubba" anymore. Any concerns about this article involving a "very small 'garage' compan[y]" is satisfied because the information is third-party verifiable (and reported in the widely circulated New York Times, among others). The NY Times articles describe the cultural phenomanon that is Pat's, and are not simply restaurant reviews. The "broad notability" requirment mentioned above is thus satisfied. And finally, just because commentators like Dr. Alf thinks the information in this article is boring does not mean that one should prevent the information from being posted. Others may not share his sentiment about the content of the article. In short, don't limit readers' access to information by broadening Wikipedia's deletion policy because you yourself aren't interested in the articles contents. Biermacht 10:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)(All previous edits are to this page)
- Delete not notable - and beware of socks. --Doc (?) 15:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Please read the sources before posting that this is not notable. Otherwise your posts are based on your opinion and are not made in good faith. (if you can't link to the sources directly, click on Google's cached version of the page.) It is notable enough for the most respected newspaper in the United States to write two seperate articles about it (one entitled "Everybody Comes to Hubba's. O.K., Maybe Not the Health Food Crowd" (Click here for associated slide show)) Biermacht 15:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Never mind socks, beware of getting hit in the nuts. --fvw* 15:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Famous place to grab some food (unsigned by 65.0.173.127 (talk · contribs) - 3rd edit)
- Delete. Another local business. -R. fiend 17:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- R. fiend, that the article is about a local business is per se not grounds for deletion. You as an administrator should know that. -Biermacht 15:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I verified the New York Times article. Port Chester is about 31 miles from New York, so that means something. The article is: "Everybody Comes to Hubba's. O.K., Maybe Not the Health Food Crowd." Peter Applebome, July 10, 2005, p. 25, Column: Our Towns. So this seems to be part of a systematic survey of towns. I conclude that the New York Times vouches for Pat's Hubba Hubba as locally notable in Port Chester. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'd encourage Biermacht to save the article text, and, if deleted, boil it down to a paragraph and put it in the Port Chester article. That's certainly appropriate. Because of the labor involved in a GFDL-friendly merge-and-delete I am not going to vote merge-and-delete though. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- weak keep If its a local cult restaurant, I'll buy the authors argument. Roodog2k (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Marcus22 19:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment If you can't write more than 2 letters than please don't bother to become part of a discusssion. I vote to delete this 'comment' as it's utterly worthless. And by the way, the what does someone born in the UK and living in France know about the legitimacy of a an entry for Pat's Hubba Hubba? Have you ever even been there or heard about it? I haven't been or heard about a lot of relevant places in France, does that make them worthless and not notable. Why not take the time to write some kind of opinion besides a cowardly "nn". - Tom
- I happen to live in a free country Tom. I'm entitled to express an opinion even if it is one you disagree with. I don't need to explain my reasons to you or to anyone else. In this case, given the little I can find out about the place, I consider it a non-notable restaurant and thus not worth keeping. Hence the delete. I'm sorry if you find nn too brief. Perhaps you should try brevity sometime - you may win more friends and stop irritating people so much! Marcus22 20:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- "I'm entitled to express an opinion" Um yeah, thats sort of the point. Express it then and dont just write "nn". "I don't need to explain my reasons to you or to anyone else" If you're posting on Wikipedia, then yes, Marcus22, you do. Read the rules. "I consider it a non-notable restaurant and thus not worth keeping" Again, Not-Notable is not criteria for deletion. How many times does this have to be pointed out to people? - Tom
- Comment to Marcus22 Biermacht the author here. Actually, you do have to explain your reasons when voting on a listing for deletion. You might want to brush up on the rules for commenting on a listing for deletion before voting again. You might have missed the important stuff in the rules; I mean, it it was only emphasized in italics. "When expressing an opinion, please include your opinion, your reasoning, and sign (with four consecutive tilde characters)." If you don't want to "explain your reasons to anyone else" then I suggest you stop voting, because your votes are unhelpful. Biermacht 14:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Votes with no comments are often counted, never mind votes that simply say "not notable" (which is what "nn" stands for). So don't count on this vote going down on that basis. By the way, Tom, I suggest making an account rather than just linking to the article on Tom all the time. Non-users often get tagged with accusations of being sockpuppets because that's often what they are (not that I'm saying you are). Lord Bob 03:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, thank you Lord Bob, JAranda and Marcus 22 for turning the bold idea of WikiPedia into nothing more than a popularity contest and ego trip for users. Have fun. I won't waste my time making a login as this experience has made it clear that WikiPedia is just another metafilter.com or slashdot.com, and not the impartial, objective resource it was intended to be. I mean some guys in Florida and France actively go after the deletion of an entry for a legendary local restaurant in New York they have never heard of or been to, without offering much, in Marcus22's case, no argument at all. Why? It's just sad really. - Tom
- Like all of Wikipedia, AfD rests on the assumption that a group of people can come to reasonable judgements on subjects in which they are not experts by the use of due diligence, basic scholarship, and simple research. Your argument that only people with direct knowledge of the restaurant should participate in discussing is like saying that only people with botany degrees should edit articles on trees. For better or for worse, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You don't need to know Hubba to express a valid opinion on whether a restaurant that is famous in Port Chester, New York and a surrounding area—probably greater than a county but less than state—needs an article of its own. Personally, I think a paragraph in the Port Chester article is probably what is appropriate. What is your compelling case for needed a separate article rather than a section in Port Chester? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm saying, that's what you're inferring. "participate in discussing", as you put it, is the problem here. Writing "nn" or "per mod" is pretty much the same thing as "trees suck, huh huh huh". I see a lot of "valid opinion" for keeping the article and lot of posting "Delete" so they can get a link up to thier profile page. To me writing "nn" or "per mod" is nothing more than self promotional comment spam. - Tom
- Like all of Wikipedia, AfD rests on the assumption that a group of people can come to reasonable judgements on subjects in which they are not experts by the use of due diligence, basic scholarship, and simple research. Your argument that only people with direct knowledge of the restaurant should participate in discussing is like saying that only people with botany degrees should edit articles on trees. For better or for worse, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You don't need to know Hubba to express a valid opinion on whether a restaurant that is famous in Port Chester, New York and a surrounding area—probably greater than a county but less than state—needs an article of its own. Personally, I think a paragraph in the Port Chester article is probably what is appropriate. What is your compelling case for needed a separate article rather than a section in Port Chester? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, thank you Lord Bob, JAranda and Marcus 22 for turning the bold idea of WikiPedia into nothing more than a popularity contest and ego trip for users. Have fun. I won't waste my time making a login as this experience has made it clear that WikiPedia is just another metafilter.com or slashdot.com, and not the impartial, objective resource it was intended to be. I mean some guys in Florida and France actively go after the deletion of an entry for a legendary local restaurant in New York they have never heard of or been to, without offering much, in Marcus22's case, no argument at all. Why? It's just sad really. - Tom
- Me, I'd vote to keep it, despite the writer's best efforts at annoying all and sundry. It does seem to be something of a local landmark, judging by the links. Then again, I'm in England and haven't been to this restaurant, so maybe my vote shouldn't be counted either? Vizjim 13:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment to All, and Lord Bob in particular, from the Author - As stated above, lack of notability is NOT a criterion for deletion, nor is it even being considered as a criterion for deletion. I thus call on the administrators to give no weight to the nominators post, and all the posters that parroted him/her. They are per se invalid. Let's stop this nonsense of of using false criteria for deletion right now! Limiting information is a very powerful thing, and to do so arbitrarily or based on made-up rules is completely contrary to Wikipedia's mission. I am very troubled that an accurate, verifiable article that doesn't violate Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is in danger of being deleted because of negative votes that offer no valid discussion and no valid basis for deletion. Comments that the article is worthless, useless, and boring are not helpful in the discussion because they are opinion. Furthermore, regardless of whether notability is a criterion, the subject of the article was reported in widely circulated and well-respected media outlets. The subject is widely known in the largest metropolitan area in North America. It has been called a "landmark" by the New York Times. It's notability is unquestionable. And one more thing, I am the author of the article. Tom is not the author, nor is he my sock puppet. What I think Tom is saying is that if you are from Canada, France, Florida or anywhere outside of the New York City metropolitan area, don't say that the article is not notable without reading the sources first. Otherwise, when you post "nn" you are simply saying "I have not heard of this place, and I don't find it important to me." Take the time to research an article before voting to prevent the information from being published.Biermacht 10:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Notability has always been and still is a de facto criterion. It has never been formalized as policy because nobody has ever been able to agree on criteria. Therefore, judgements of notability are hashed out case by case in individual discussions, without the benefit of codified policy, leading to contention. Notability is a criterion for some categories of articles, e.g. biographies. You say "I am very troubled that an accurate, verifiable article that doesn't violate Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is in danger of being deleted." However, many items of information that are accurate and verifiable, yet unencyclopedic. And nobody is preventing the information from being published. In fact, nobody is preventing you from using Wikipedia to publish it. This information can go in the Port Chester, New York article, in a suitably abbreviated form, and you are certainly free to put the entire article on your personal user page, which you do not presently seem to be using for anything else. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Dpbsmith, I appreciate you taking the time to express your viewpoint in a reasonable and rational manner. I only wish the vast majority of "delete" posters took the time to do the same. If someone believes that the article is not notable, then they should say why it is not notable. I believe that is all the more important because notability is not an official requirement. Taking five minutes to explain one's point of view is not too much to ask when they are voting to delete information from Wikipedia. I do disagree with you about them not preventing information from being published. You are the only person that took the time to offer an alternative method of information distribution. Everyone else voted to shut down the article, period. Censoring the flow of information is a very powerful thing, and voting to to do so deserves more than the glib response that the majority of "delete" voters gave. And once again, I maintain that Pat's Hubba Hubba is notable and deserves its own page. It is a landmark in the largest metropolitan area in North America, as verified by several major media outlets. But thanks for providing me with alternatives.Biermacht 12:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, you want to know why I think this restaurant is not notable? Because it's a restaurant. That's all it is. There are millions of restaurants. What's special about this restaurant? I examine the article, and the closest thing I can see to being special is a glowing endorsement, in passing, of one of its dishes from Bill Simmons. I like Bill Simmons, when he isn't interviewing two-bit authors instead of doing his job. But, in my opinion, this article does not establish that this restaurant is any more special than millions of other restaurants. Having really hot chili and a former chain smoker for a proprietor does not notability make. And why didn't I write this all in my original vote? Because when I say something is "non-notable", I very seldom have to go into considerable detail of why it is so because people can see it for themselves. Perhaps it's notable to people who eat at it, but Wikipedia is not Westchester County, New Yorkpedia. Being a landmark isn't notable, there's a freakin' hill in my hometown that's a landmark. Lord Bob 16:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am guessing that the New York Times, and the Victoria Times Colonist for that matter, never wrote an article on a hill in your hometown. If they did I would say that your hill is obviously noteworthy, since they took the time to note it in their newspapers. BTW, I linked Google's cached version of the NY Times article, so if you have had trouble getting access to it, why not read it? It might change your mind. Also, I am not trying to turn this into New Yorkepedia, but since when is national or international notoriety a requirement? Isn't it more important to put things in Wikipedia that aren't universally known, so that people can learn about them?. Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia that is not bound by paper pages?Biermacht 14:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Everybody's definition of what's notable varies, from my experience. The hill in question has been articled several times, although not in the New York Times (nor the Times-Colonist since I wasn't born in Victoria and the hill isn't there), but I don't think everything in the Times is notable because it was in the Times. There are many people who think that local notice is enough, and as Dpbsmith pointed out below, there are enough people who think this restaurant is notable that it is almost certain it'll still have a Wikipedia article when this AfD closes. I respect people who say that local notability is enough, but I disagree with it, which is why I voted delete, above. Lord Bob 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- A hill that's a landmark and has been written about in articles. Now, that really sounds interesting. This must be one special hill. It's too bad there's no WikiPedia entry for it. Seriously. - Tom
- Everybody's definition of what's notable varies, from my experience. The hill in question has been articled several times, although not in the New York Times (nor the Times-Colonist since I wasn't born in Victoria and the hill isn't there), but I don't think everything in the Times is notable because it was in the Times. There are many people who think that local notice is enough, and as Dpbsmith pointed out below, there are enough people who think this restaurant is notable that it is almost certain it'll still have a Wikipedia article when this AfD closes. I respect people who say that local notability is enough, but I disagree with it, which is why I voted delete, above. Lord Bob 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am guessing that the New York Times, and the Victoria Times Colonist for that matter, never wrote an article on a hill in your hometown. If they did I would say that your hill is obviously noteworthy, since they took the time to note it in their newspapers. BTW, I linked Google's cached version of the NY Times article, so if you have had trouble getting access to it, why not read it? It might change your mind. Also, I am not trying to turn this into New Yorkepedia, but since when is national or international notoriety a requirement? Isn't it more important to put things in Wikipedia that aren't universally known, so that people can learn about them?. Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia that is not bound by paper pages?Biermacht 14:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Biermacht, just in case you aren't aware... I presently see eight keeps and eleven deletes. That means that my personal guess is that the article is probably not going to be deleted. When a sysop "closes" a discussion, he or she looks at the discussion and judges whether there is a "rough consensus for deletion." Barring voting irregularities and special circumstances, most of the time most sysops take a 2/3 majority as a guideline. AfD tends to bring out the very worst in Wikipedians. The reason so many comments are curt is that there's no very good way to decide what should go into Wikipedia and what shouldn't, so anyone who participates in AfD has heard it all dozens of times before and everyone tends to be curt and short-tempered. That's not an excuse, just an explanation. I see someone's added references to the article. That's a Good Thing. I see someone else has edited to tone down the promotional language. That's a Good Thing too. Cheers. How do you like the article on Playland? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, you want to know why I think this restaurant is not notable? Because it's a restaurant. That's all it is. There are millions of restaurants. What's special about this restaurant? I examine the article, and the closest thing I can see to being special is a glowing endorsement, in passing, of one of its dishes from Bill Simmons. I like Bill Simmons, when he isn't interviewing two-bit authors instead of doing his job. But, in my opinion, this article does not establish that this restaurant is any more special than millions of other restaurants. Having really hot chili and a former chain smoker for a proprietor does not notability make. And why didn't I write this all in my original vote? Because when I say something is "non-notable", I very seldom have to go into considerable detail of why it is so because people can see it for themselves. Perhaps it's notable to people who eat at it, but Wikipedia is not Westchester County, New Yorkpedia. Being a landmark isn't notable, there's a freakin' hill in my hometown that's a landmark. Lord Bob 16:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Dpbsmith, I appreciate you taking the time to express your viewpoint in a reasonable and rational manner. I only wish the vast majority of "delete" posters took the time to do the same. If someone believes that the article is not notable, then they should say why it is not notable. I believe that is all the more important because notability is not an official requirement. Taking five minutes to explain one's point of view is not too much to ask when they are voting to delete information from Wikipedia. I do disagree with you about them not preventing information from being published. You are the only person that took the time to offer an alternative method of information distribution. Everyone else voted to shut down the article, period. Censoring the flow of information is a very powerful thing, and voting to to do so deserves more than the glib response that the majority of "delete" voters gave. And once again, I maintain that Pat's Hubba Hubba is notable and deserves its own page. It is a landmark in the largest metropolitan area in North America, as verified by several major media outlets. But thanks for providing me with alternatives.Biermacht 12:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Notability has always been and still is a de facto criterion. It has never been formalized as policy because nobody has ever been able to agree on criteria. Therefore, judgements of notability are hashed out case by case in individual discussions, without the benefit of codified policy, leading to contention. Notability is a criterion for some categories of articles, e.g. biographies. You say "I am very troubled that an accurate, verifiable article that doesn't violate Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is in danger of being deleted." However, many items of information that are accurate and verifiable, yet unencyclopedic. And nobody is preventing the information from being published. In fact, nobody is preventing you from using Wikipedia to publish it. This information can go in the Port Chester, New York article, in a suitably abbreviated form, and you are certainly free to put the entire article on your personal user page, which you do not presently seem to be using for anything else. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm.. not sure about the 8 for and 11 against. Some of the votes for (but by no means all) are a little uncertain in origin. All the same, if it stays good for Pats Hubba Hubba. (ie. There's really no need to take it personally Tom). Marcus22 20:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Article's with such interesting names must be kept :). Plus, not-notible is not a criterion for deletion. If you see anything that is close like this message me so I can vote to keep. --ShaunMacPherson 08:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep seems notable enough to get mentioned in the NYT and ESPN.com and anyways notability is not a criterion for deletion! Klonimus 04:27, 4 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
