Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Anita's

Little Anita's

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

"Contested CSD" from Talk:Little Anita's by 180.172.239.231 Smile Lee (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nomination reason is insufficient. Also, this chain of restaurants has been covered in multiple magazines, newspapers, and websites. It is extremely important to the history of New Mexican cuisine, and its restaurant culture. And it has received accolades outside of its founding region, particularly in Denver. And, considering its a New Mexican staple that means there are local accolades, not currently listed in the article. Smile Lee (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smile Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocterCox (talk • contribs) 12:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The article is well-structured, categorized, and factually accurate. Even as a stub, the article is heavily sourced, including sources not local to New Mexico such as The Washington Post, and as the previous comment notes, even more references are possible. I don't see a problem, let alone one so glaring and unfixable as to be worth destroying the article. Unician ∇ 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only non local reference, the onefrom the Washington Post, is incompatible with the contents of this article. UIf it is in fact a national chain, then it would be notable. If it's thirteen restaurants in 2 local areas, that's another matter. That's all their own website claims. Can one of the supporters of the article explain the contradiction in the sources? DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response, WP:ITSLOCAL is not a reason for deletion. Regardless, that Washington Post article is about Anita Tellez, the founder of this establishment; and the article states that quite clearly. She is most famous for the creation of Little Anita's, and the several "Anita's" restaruants around the country. Little Anita's however is the only one to have significant coverage of its own. Smile Lee (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the national-level reliable source, this small chain is part of a national franchise. We do not make articles on individual branches of national food chains. I would have no objection to an article on the national franchise that mentioned there were some outlets in these two states. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response, it is not a "individual branch" of a "national food chain". The article clearly states that Little Anita's is its own thing, and the various Anita's restaurants around the country are from various family members from the same matriarch. The Little Anita's chain is the only restaurant that actually became a chain, it has also been the only one to be found in multiple states. The Little Anita's chain has been operating since 1976, so most secondary sources will probably be non-digital, and since it is a prominent part of New Mexican cuisine there are several OBVIOUS sources not incorporated into the article, like the Albuquerque Journal, The Albuquerque Tribune, Clovis News-Journal, The Gallup Independent, Santa Fe Reporter, and The Taos News. Smile Lee (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, just did some snooping, the two chains are indeed different, they would both require separate articles. Little Anita's is important to the New Mexico area for much different reasons, since its serving local cuisine, and has been doing so for more than 30 years. Anita's New Mexico Style is important to the Washington D.C. area, since it was founded by a different person, and under difference circumstances, and is successfully serving a different region's food. Smile Lee (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, “Anita's” is not a franchise, it's a restaurant business with multiple locations, all of which, as far as I know, were personally founded by Anita and operated by her family and staff. I agree that we don't create articles such as “McDonald's locations in Maine”, but this article is not of that type. The Washington DC area restaurants use the Website “www.anitascorp.com”. Unician ∇ 12:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The chain(s) do not meet the standards of WP:Notability as established in WP:CORPDEPTH because all the sources provided fall under WP:Routine or are WP:Primary. They consist almost exclusively of reviews, listings from travel guides, or from local business directories; not one of the sources is actually about the company itself. Yes some of the sources provided are unto themselves reliable, the reliability of the source does not connote automatic notability on the subject. While the company is local and local chains can be notable, these sources are not sufficient to prove its notability, which means it has to go. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, notability does not solely rely on the sources within the article, as stated before there are still sources from Albuquerque Journal, The Albuquerque Tribune, Clovis News-Journal, The Gallup Independent, Santa Fe Reporter, and The Taos News not incorporated into the article. Notability relies on sources from outside of the article as well. Smile Lee (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC) The current references are also not WP:Routine as they are not "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism... Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs... common, everyday, ordinary items". Smile Lee (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then provide them and stop arguing with us about our delete !votes. Also reviews, top 10 lists and other similar coverage are inherently routine. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, I added a few of them, and I didn't even look that hard, there's plenty more sources to go off of. Smile Lee (talk)
    - Reply - you didn't look very hard either, more reviews and travel guides, none of which establish notability as established in WP:CORPDEPTH. You are missing the point regarding proper sourcing for restaurants- reviews, best of lists, directories, now open listings and all other WP:Routine coverage only provides that the place is WP:Verifiable. You need quality sources that are about the chain, not the poor quality listings that you have provided. You need articles that are about the chain, and when I say about the chain I mean articles that discuss its history in depth, it business model and other structures related to it. These other sources you keep adding aren't worth the paper they were printed on regarding notability. Remember that sources that are reliable do not automatically confer notability to a subject simply because said source is inherently reliable. You need quality, not quantity, and so far you have not provided the required quality sources. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response added another source, and an appearance in popular culture. My point in saying "I didn't even look that hard", was to say that finding more references, wouldn't be difficult. I'm not going to devote all of my efforts into this, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Smile Lee (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smile Lee and Unician. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]