Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of restaurants: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
*'''Comment''' - I have the most trouble with this sort of article. Here we have a nice little article, decently written, on a notable subject, not controversial, that could likely be easily sourced. It adds to the project and if someone objected to a bit of it then they can remove that bit or do a better job on the bit (sourced, of course). My [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html "insist on sources] "half" (actually about 97%) says delete while my [[WP:IAR]] "half" (actually about 3%) says keep. So I will '''abstain''' for now and hopefully learn something from the discussion. --[[User:JustaHulk|JustaHulk]] ([[User talk:JustaHulk|talk]]) 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' - I have the most trouble with this sort of article. Here we have a nice little article, decently written, on a notable subject, not controversial, that could likely be easily sourced. It adds to the project and if someone objected to a bit of it then they can remove that bit or do a better job on the bit (sourced, of course). My [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050773.html "insist on sources] "half" (actually about 97%) says delete while my [[WP:IAR]] "half" (actually about 3%) says keep. So I will '''abstain''' for now and hopefully learn something from the discussion. --[[User:JustaHulk|JustaHulk]] ([[User talk:JustaHulk|talk]]) 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
**'''Comment''' I struggled as well. Ended up nominating on two reasons 1) as my boss calls it, "Department of Redundancy Department" -- most of the types of restaurants already have their own articles and 2) the "see also" section, most of which are resturants as well -- why aren't they in the main body - I think it's impossible for this to be an all-encompassing list. Would it be better as a category? [[User:Travellingcari|Travellingcari]] ([[User talk:Travellingcari|talk]]) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) |
**'''Comment''' I struggled as well. Ended up nominating on two reasons 1) as my boss calls it, "Department of Redundancy Department" -- most of the types of restaurants already have their own articles and 2) the "see also" section, most of which are resturants as well -- why aren't they in the main body - I think it's impossible for this to be an all-encompassing list. Would it be better as a category? [[User:Travellingcari|Travellingcari]] ([[User talk:Travellingcari|talk]]) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
***The information in this article would best fit in the [[restaurant]] article but it would be too extensive and would then be broken out to a separate article perhaps titled (drum roll) [[Types of restaurants]]. Which is pretty much what happened on 2006-12-11, cf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restaurant&diff=93660961&oldid=92955109 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Types_of_restaurants&diff=93670981&oldid=93660133 this]. --[[User:JustaHulk|JustaHulk]] ([[User talk:JustaHulk|talk]]) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:37, 6 February 2008
- Types of restaurants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This has been tagged as OR, namely because it cannot be sourced in any reasonable manner. Further, all the classes of restaurants other than "other" and Family Style have their own pages, is there a need for (unsourced) duplication? I think anything viable from the introduction could go into Restaurants if it can be sourced, but otherwise this article will always remain Original Research and have NPOV issues Travellingcari (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I have the most trouble with this sort of article. Here we have a nice little article, decently written, on a notable subject, not controversial, that could likely be easily sourced. It adds to the project and if someone objected to a bit of it then they can remove that bit or do a better job on the bit (sourced, of course). My "insist on sources "half" (actually about 97%) says delete while my WP:IAR "half" (actually about 3%) says keep. So I will abstain for now and hopefully learn something from the discussion. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I struggled as well. Ended up nominating on two reasons 1) as my boss calls it, "Department of Redundancy Department" -- most of the types of restaurants already have their own articles and 2) the "see also" section, most of which are resturants as well -- why aren't they in the main body - I think it's impossible for this to be an all-encompassing list. Would it be better as a category? Travellingcari (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The information in this article would best fit in the restaurant article but it would be too extensive and would then be broken out to a separate article perhaps titled (drum roll) Types of restaurants. Which is pretty much what happened on 2006-12-11, cf. this and this. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I struggled as well. Ended up nominating on two reasons 1) as my boss calls it, "Department of Redundancy Department" -- most of the types of restaurants already have their own articles and 2) the "see also" section, most of which are resturants as well -- why aren't they in the main body - I think it's impossible for this to be an all-encompassing list. Would it be better as a category? Travellingcari (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)