Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York Steak House

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep, no point in keeping a withdrawn nom open now is there? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] York Steak House

York Steak House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability tag since March, unreferenced tag since March Sbowers3 (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Unsourced material can be deleted. Well, this whole article is unsourced and has been tagged for nine months, so the whole thing can be deleted. Without sources, notability cannot be verified. It has been tagged for notability for nine months. If someone thinks the subject is notable then provide some sources, and then remove the tags. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn now that it has been improved. Thanks to those who had the interest and energy to do it. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as failing WP:V, WP:CORP per lack of sources. Sandstein (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep assuming that I can find additional sourcing, although not something that I intend to spend Christmas Day doing. From the internet is this appetizer [1]. This is one of those things that would be hard to believe now-- the somewhat tacky "medieval England" theme, placing a steak house in a mall, etc. -- but it was successful in a different era. These were a fairly prominent fixture in malls back in the 1970s, numbering in the hundreds. There was a time when families would go to a mall ("dressed up") for a nice dinner, and the "family restaurant" was as exclusive as an anchor store. In those communities where stores were closed on Sundays (blue laws were not uncommon prior to 1980), the steak house and the movie theater were among the few businesses open in the mall on a Sunday afternoon. The 70s also featured the trend toward the franchising of low-cost, cafeteria-style steak houses with "western" or, in this case, "old England" themes. The General Mills corporation made a foray into the restaurant business, and absorbed the losses as restaurants and malls changed. Google search is somewhat hampered by more ghits for "New York steak house" than for "York Steak House". Notable, however, on a variety of levels. And before anyone says, "go find the sources", I say, "Later. It's Christmas!" Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but source. Part of a suite of restaurant concepts from General Mills, of which the two chief survivors are Olive Garden and Red Lobster. Since these went under in the 1980s sources will be limited. AFD is not cleanup. [2][3][4][5]
--Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The Smug Mug site is the work of a professional photographer/video producer thus it is a primary source, but I believe it meets the standards of WP:PSTS. This also appears to be a case of "I don't like it" by the nominator as when he prodded it, I removed the prod tag as the chain is notable.
- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC))
It's the lack of sources that I don't like - and it's been nine months since the unsourced and non-notable tags were put there (by someone else). Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia and without sources we don't have verifiability and we don't have notability. I'm going through old articles at Category:Articles lacking sources and Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability and prod'ing or afd'ing as many as I have patience for. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhartung and the fact that a national chain should be notable by default, right?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but improve - I found two good sources and added them to the list at the end of the article -- in less time than it typically takes me to nominate an article for deletion. However, I did not work on improving the actual article... --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2007 (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.