Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy's Baking Company (Kitchen Nightmares)

Amy's Baking Company (Kitchen Nightmares)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amy's Baking Company, although has been in the media pre/post Kitchen Nightmares, is still not notable enough for having it's own article for the following reasons:

1. WP:NOTABILITY - Amy's Baking Company only has been spotlighted AFTER the Kitchen Nightmares episode aired.
2. Most of the article is a PLOT SUMMARY of the show.
3. Not as generally widespread as a typical news article - Only Kitchen Nightmares fans would be interested in reading about Amy's Baking Company.
4. None of the other Kitchen Nightmares have their own article. I honestly don't think Amy's Baking Company needs to have their own article either. =TIMMYC= (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The body of the article, despite it's minutia-filled, endless summary, hinges on the owners 15 minutes of fame for their bad behavior after the fact. The body of editors seem unable to differentiate between notability and notoriety, the latter being what makes the article of any degree of interest to anyone. National attention has died down to the merest dribble, and we're left with a "so-what?" article about a minor kerfuffle on social media, but no notability. The episode itself was never of any consequence; what generated the now-deleted article on the restaurant itself and now the article on the episode (which was started far too soon to begin with) was the owners' post-episode conduct, which is spelled out in lurid detail, given WP:UNDUE attention. Attempts to shorten the article, and remove the more biased or sensational details are immediately removed by over-invested editors, while efforts to present the actions of involved second parties (such as a petition to recover back tips) are quickly swept away, giving the article a significant WP:NPOV issues. In the end, there's simply nothing worth keeping, and the article fails to meet even the most minimal standards for notability, as does the episode itself. --Drmargi (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A restaurant was featured in one episode of Ramsey's reality TV show and got a splash of publicity because of the emotional response of the owners to criticism. This does not seem like encyclopedic information of enduring interest, and the business does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG with respect to the business, WP:BIO for the owners, WP:N for the TV episode, and smacks of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. It doe not seem appropriate to create a separate encyclopedia article for each episode of Ramsey's reality show, which consists mostly of a detailed scene by scene plot summary, even if the exposure and real or semiscripted "dramah" gained the participants 15 minutes of fame. This would be more encyclopedically covered by a one paragraph summary in the article about that season of Ramsey's show, so a "Smerge" to an article about the season would also be appropriate. Edison (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I don't see the point in trying to prevent any mention of the notoriety this company has at all on Wikipedia. It was short lived, but so are many things that have become memes but still have a mention. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I observe that it is standard practice to recognize episodes of notable TV shows as notable themselves, particularly when secondary sources are included in the article for things other than merely the episode's plot, such as themes, critical reception, impact, etc. None of the other Kitchen Nightmares episodes have articles because they haven't been created yet. Not because they necessarily do not merit them. This episode's notability is the fact that it's the first episode in the show's history in which Ramsay walked out on the owners without helping them, and numerous secondary sources support the article. Deleting such an article would be irrational, and would go against general practices with regard to TV episodes. As for Amy's Baking Company itself, it no longer has an article. Nightscream (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Individual episode articles are routinely deleted as non-notable, and must establish notability independent of the TV show itself. Moreover, absence of other articles does not necessarily mean they simply haven't been created yet. That there are six seasons and upwards of 75 episodes without an article suggests lack of notability far more than any other explanation. As for this episode, the fact remains that it attracted attention, and notoriety mistaken for notability simply by virtue of the owners' bad behavior after the episode, not because of the episode itself. --Drmargi (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add: Amy's Baking Company has been spolighted before. In 2010.http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bella/2010/08/ouch_todays_hard_lesson_on_yel.php She was all over blogs and social media then. There was a Wikipedia article for the company itself, also deleted. I think the fact that it made news for a considerable amount of time and that the backlash was the spotlight makes it notable. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you prove my point; bad behavior and sensational news coverage leads to notoriety, not notability. These are two very, very different things. Moreover, what happened ahead of the episode has nothing to do with the episode and would fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One of the biggest problems with the article is it's become a dumping ground for all the trashy details about the restaurant over time along with a few minor local reviews. --Drmargi (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Individual episode articles are routinely deleted as non-notable, and must establish notability independent of the TV show itself. Hence the part of the opening line of my message above where I said "...particularly when secondary sources are included in the article for things other than merely the episode's plot, such as themes, critical reception, impact, etc."

...bad behavior and sensational news coverage leads to notoriety, not notability. False Either/Or fallacy. Notoriety and Notability are not mutually exclusive points on an Either/Or spectrum, since notability can be achieved either through things that we might consider "good", or things we might consider "bad", or "notorious". If this were not the case, then there would be not Wikipedia articles on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the JetBlue flight attendant incident, 9/11, Charles Manson, etc. Notability is based on some type of uniqueness that is covered in secondary sources. It is not based on our personal value judgments of the topic. The episode in question is the first in the show's history in which Ramsay walked out without helping the restaurant owners, due to behavior on their part that has been documented for years, all of which is indeed covered by numerous secondary sources. Whether we think the Bouzaglos are "notorious" is completely irrelevant to this point. Nightscream (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources, particularly as minor ones as a Phoenix restaurant blog, do not on their face establish notability, just that there was enough of a local kerfuffle to merit mention largely designed to make the restaurant owners look like idiots. I can't help but wonder if you've actually considered how laughably absurd it is to compare two trashy restaurant owners to Kelbold and Harris in an attempt to draw a parallel. Those examples merely strengthen my arguments. In this case, which is all I ever mentioned, the news coverage has led to notoriety, as evidenced by the fascination with the owners' respective legal issues, threats of lawsuits, theft from employees, and more, all of which are significant personal issues, but hardly meriting any time and space here. There's no attempt in the media or in this article to tell a balanced tale of what went on with emphasis on the episode itself. This is all about using the episode article as a vehicle to document the owners' behavior after the episode, despite the section failing WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE at minimum. --Drmargi (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete there was some news coverage but its not about anything notable (people said st00pid things on social media - WOW THATS NOTABLE - uhh, people NOT saying st00pid things on social media is far more notable) and there is no indication that the fluffle in the news actually represents anything of a lasting nature rather than simply the spin generated to fill a 24 hour news cycle. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Nomination for 2 months: Howabout we hold the deletion nomination for a couple of months to test the viability of the article? Other articles on Wikipedia survive less scrutiny and they've stuck around for much longer with shaky rationale. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The episode has received coverage. Well... we can't really eliminate an episode for not getting coverage until after it's aired. That's sort of par for the course for all but the most high profile episodes out there. As far as plot summary goes, I will say that it could probably be slimmed down and there hasn't been a lot of fighting over the paring down of the material in the episode summary. Now as far as this only having interest for KN fans, that's not really a fair reason to delete either. That's like saying that only fans of the Family Guy series would have an interest in any given episode. We don't delete articles because only a slim group of people would have an interest. As far as other episodes go, we don't need an article for every episode. Just the episodes that get coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I mean by "we don't need an article for every episode" is that not every episode is notable enough to really merit an article. However if you have an episode of any TV show, whether it's a reality show or a BBC drama series, that receives an extensive amount of coverage, that episode merits an entry. You can have shows that will receive little to no coverage outside of the series as a whole, yet they'll have that one episode that gets that coverage. As far as long-term coverage goes, we don't necessarily have to have months upon months of coverage for an episode. I don't think it's necessarily right or fair to hold a television episode to the same standard that we would a person with WP:BIO1E. If we were going to say that something should be deleted because it only got coverage during its time of release, a good many articles that have established notability would be deleted because they only received reviews or coverage within its initial release. Now I don't mean this as far as small off the way films, books, or episodes, but relatively major mainstream things that have established notability such as Emily Giffin's Where We Belong or The Family Corleone. Their coverage pretty much peaked at their release and died down very soon afterwards, yet they're considered to be notable. It's not entirely fair to say that because an episode isn't going to get every media outlet falling all over it afterwards for months and months, that it isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a good life story about how not to behave on the internet, the same medium that makes Wikipedia possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.140.214 (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This episode and the restaurant in question has received significant news coverage. It should keep its own article, even if every other episode doesn't have their own episode. //iXavier <talk/edits/logs> 21:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This show is obviously notable and has received a SLEW of secondary-source coverage in reliable, mainstream media. If we have Pokemón (subculture), which is a barely-notable flash-in-the-pan Chilean hairstyle inexplicably named after an anime show, on the basis of it being mentioned in a few media outlets, how is this different? I would venture that statistically the bulk of Wikipedia articles are things that (1) got attention after they happened, (2) mostly are summarized as a description of an event in their article, (3) are mostly of interest only to people who are interested in them, with the mainstream media coverage slanted towards that, and (4) unique in the sense that a dozen similar things are not in Wikipedia. These are the weakest, most nonsensical reasons to delete an article I've ever read. These people had their 15 minutes of fame, and this generated substantial attention from reliable, mainstream, secondary-source newsmedia. That's why this episode has an article (note, these people do not). What are we, the cover-up police? Do we feel bad about "bad press" for these people? Good thing we aren't the press. The press has already been bad to them, that's why the article sounds bad -- because we draw on, without adding to or synthesizing from -- secondary sources. There has been enough press coverage of this to merit its own article -- if you think this is a WP:NEWS issue, you've never read WP:NEWS. That's also why this article is about the episode, not about the two owners or their company. This kind of pedantic crap is why I mostly quit Wikipedia, but I wanted a summary of the hubbub about this episode of the show, since I'd hear about it from word-of-mouth and a few news sources, and BAM here it is where it belongs on Wikipedia. And people are trying to delete it? I would not be opposed to merging it with the main article about the show except that it would wind up being a huge portion of that article -- huge enough to merit being split, which is exactly why its on its own already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.46.43 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I honestly don't mind mentions about Amy's Baking Company on the Kitchen Nightmares Wikipedia page, but the notability of this episode is about 1-2 paragraphs at most under the "Reception" section. Amy's Baking Company episode, in my honest opinion, still should not be having their own page because...

1. WP:NOTABILITY - Most of the article is an episode synopsis. A paragraph or two about this episode's reception is enough for Wikipedia in the Kitchen Nightmares article.

2. Pokemón (subculture) is an article describing the subculture in Chile, which documents a cultural historic background, hence notable enough for Wikipedia. Amy's Baking Company, on the other hand, is not.

Tibbydibby (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the various editors clinging to this article are honest with themselves, they'll have to admit that the only reason anyone is remotely interested in this episode isn't because of what went on in the episode, but because of what went on after the fact. I'd encourage them to read the long, long discussions in the show's talk page archives regarding inclusion of post-episode outcomes, which consensus as long held fails a number of policies, including WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If that content is swept away, as it should be, this episode is a big ho-hum that merits a sentence noting Ramsay walked out and nothing more. The attempts to keep this episode are all about wallowing in the lurid, but not notable, aftermath, and then only from a narrow POV. --Drmargi (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:N "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The episode has received this. So has the aftermath. The article should stay. Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I headed over here to find secondary articles about the topic, which as far as I'm concerned makes it notable enough for me. DWaterson (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]