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 no consensus per sources presented by Northamerica1000 appear to pass WP:AUD. The strongest sources presented are Oxford University Press and The News & Observer are non-local sources giving the cafe significant coverage. Others have argued that these sources are not enough for notability. The vote count and arguments lean toward keeping, however there is still disagreement, hence a lack of consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe[edit]

Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable restaurant in a college town. All of the in-depth coverage is from the The News & Observer, the regional paper for this area of North Carolina, and given the proximity to Chapel Hill, it really is more local puff coverage than anything else. You have other coverage in IndyWeek: a local piece that does reviews of virtually every resturant in the area, and the Daily Tar Heel, the student newspaper of UNC-Chapel Hill, which doesn't count towards notability. There are some mentions in larger publications such as HuffPost and The Guardian, but these are just passing along with other coverage of Chapel Hill food establishments, and don't meet the significant coverage threshold. This is simply a generic Indian place that has gotten some press because of the social-justicey feel of its background. That is quite common in the area, and nothing about it really stands out. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This nomination strikes me as odd. It clearly passes the general notability guideline, because a plethora of reliable sources that have more than "mentions": The News & Observer, Indy Week, The Story with Dick Gordon, Grist, etc. No part of the general notability guideline says that it has to have national coverage or anything remotely close. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IndyWeek is a local publication that reviews literally every restaurant in the greater Triangle region at some point. The News & Observer is the only real journalistic publication in the region and this type of coverage would be typical for many restaurants: it is routine and doesn't come near our notability threshold. Grist is an interview with the owner, which means it is a primary source that doesn't establish notability. Even if we change the GNG to include primary sourcing, it would fail WP:ORGIND for lacking intellectual independence from the company. Chapel Hill does have some notable resturants (Top of the Hill Restaurant & Brewery being the first that comes to mind), but this isn't one of them. There are literally three Indian restaurants on the same block, and this one is nothing special. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because a publication regularly reviews restaurants doesn't make it inherently not meet the GNG. Also, ORGIND says nothing about interviews, and saying that other restaurants exist that are more notable doesn't make this one less. You may wish to see my working page which lists bare URLs of sources, such as the coverage on PBS (albeit a local affiliate, it's still a reliable source). --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The GNG requires secondary sourcing that is intellectually independent. Interviews are neither secondary nor intellectually independent. We never count them at AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may never count them at AFD, but many do. A media organisation choosing to interview and publish the interview is of course an indication of notability, as it is an editorial judgement on whether the subject of the interview is notable and so UHameltion is correct to bring them up as an indicator of notability. Egaoblai (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disregarding the interviews, the restaurant has still been covered, see for example WP:AUD: "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" and that would be The News & Observer. One article in particular is "Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe starts next 5 years with $100,000 recipe for success", much more than a "puff" piece. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. The News & Observer piece you cite is also primarily an interview that fails WP:ORGIND, particularly other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Additionally, like most regional press, theNews & Observer splits it's coverage between local and statewide/regional stories. In this case, the stories themselves are identified by the paper as being local (Chapel Hill and Orange County). These are human interest pieces that don't establish notability. We routinely delete organizations that are significantly more notable than this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know that things get deleted that are notable, like PDQ (restaurant). I'd like to emphasize that just because things are local or include quotations doesn't meant that they don't establish notability. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is so homespun, so full of corny sentimentality ("the restaurant's policy of not turning away people who could not pay") that I can almost imagine the main chef sitting on her porch making dinner for the whole town while she whistles "They'll be Coming 'Round the Mountain." Not to mention the mild case of plagiarism from the News & Observer shown here, this article is remarkable only for its puffery.Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reasons for deletion. I invite you to improve the article. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a nn business only of local interest. Sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:AUD, and is mostly WP:SPIP: interviews and PR driven puff pieces. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The article was created on 21:04, 26 December 2017‎ (link) by a relatively new user and then nominated for deletion 20 minutes later on 26 December 2017‎ (diff). Then, the user's work is chastised here with commentary such as "...homespun, so full of corny sentimentality", etc. Not commenting on notability at this time, but sheesh, really? See also WP:BITE. I hope the editor that created the article won't be discouraged and cease contributing to Wikipedia because of this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I appreciate that. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per WP:BEFORE searches, meets WP:AUD per the book source and meets WP:GNG. I agree that the article would benefit from copy editing, but the topic does meet notability guidelines, although not on a grand level. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Only the book source counts towards notability per our guidelines. The rest are primary as discussed above, and thus specifically excluded from counting towards notability by WP:N. That isn't even taking into account the local nature of the coverage. This is not enough to meet the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. This source has only one quote from the subject, and the rest is written entirely from the journalist's perspective. This source also has significant independent analysis from the journalist. It is quite normative for reporters to actually speak a bit with people involved in the companies they are reporting upon; to not do so would be biased and journalistically unobjective. Also, I'm a bit concerned that I had to come in here and present the book source in the first place. Are users actually researching notability via WP:BEFORE searches, or just basing it incorrectly upon the state of sourcing in articles? I found the book source simply by selecting the Gbooks link atop this discussion; it's the first link on the search results page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a review by the local TV station that reads like a press release and includes no journalistic analysis at all. It is a feel good local puff piece. The News & Observer piece you site isn't about the company at all: it is about the impact of the Trump administration's policies on local refugees who have lunch at the restaurant. That is not coverage of the restaurant, but of Donald Trump's immigration policies. Even if we were to agree that the content meets our standards for businesses (which it doesn't), they are also both local sources. I could literally create an article on every restaurant Franklin Street (Chapel Hill) based on this sourcing, because all the town has is a university, bars, and food. There is no way that any of this subject comes remotely close to meeting our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll have to agree to disagree. I agree that the article about the lunch doesn't offer a lot, but I view this as contributing to notability. It's a bylined news article objectively written by a journalist that is published by a reliable source and provides significant coverage about the topic, as does the book source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• From a local TV station. It fails WP:AUD. As does all the coverage form the News & Observer because it is from the local section, not their statewide or regional pieces. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:AUD, " at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" to qualify notability (bold emphasis mine). Every source does not have to meet AUD, only one does. WP:GNG does not state that every source has to meet AUD, nor should it. Note that in my !vote above, I stated "meets WP:AUD per the book source". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inadequate sources: local sources for restaurants in a small city normally cover essentially all local restaurants, and are therefore indiscriminate. Using them implies that all restaurants are notable. The promotional style of the article is also cvcery heavily marked, particularly the biographical details in the first paragraph, which in this case completely irrelevant to the importance of a restaurant (obviously bio details about a restauranteur's career are relevant, but usually not their childhood). DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Might I add that "promotional style" can be fixed and several sources heavily draw on the restaurateur's childhood as a means of conveying influence over the food served. Your comments on editing are helpful; thanks! --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a strongly sourced article. A reminder to previous voters for delete that interviews are perfectly valid sources of notability, as choosing to publish an interview is an editorial decision and that local sources are welcome (and encouraged!) on Wikipedia. Some of the complaints about the article could be solved with WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Egaoblai (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they are not. They are primary sources. Your keep vote has no basis in the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Quoting Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability: "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability."  --Lambiam 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep but Retarget/Rename The focus of much of the available sources, and hence the article, is about her rather than purely about the restaurant itself, hence the article is poorly weighted and feels like COATRACK. Rename the article, and retarget to focus on her, with the cafe as a redirect to a section and material that doesn't really belong in the current article included. Additional coverage in the journal Southern Cultures (UNC published but presumably with a broader distribution), and long interviews on WUNC's The State of Things and the Story(NC regional, but may have been rebroadcast through other public radio). Brief mentions in the Guardian, and Mlive and key note at Chatham University in Pennsylvania. The grant was publicised in Forbes and Enterpreneur (these may not usable as RS due to paid placement?). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hydronium Hydroxide, these all appear to be primary sourcing. Is there any secondary sourcing that you would be able to find that would meet the GNG? If you think that the owner is notable, but the restaurant isn't, then this page should be deleted and a new article created on her. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TonyBallioni: The sources were mainly expanding on AUD (though several are not entirely primary), and NA1000's book find and the independent coverage (weakly) address N. I sit by retargetting as facilitating better structure, tone, and content but in the absence of support that's not the (Chapel) Hill I plan to die on. If there's something that is to be kept, then deletion plus recreation plus restoration to draft plus copyandpastemerge plus historymerge is excessive. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hydronium Hydroxide: that’s the thing, there isn’t anything here that remotely should be kept under NCORP, the creator has done a good job of WikiLawyering to the point where it is easy to ignore that the sourcing itself is significantly below anything we would expect for corporate notability, as is the coverage of the owner in terms of a BLP, for what it is worth, though there is a stronger claim here. The other thing to consider here is that the claim to notability is essentially that she is a poor business owner: she almost bankrupted her business and needed the grant to survive. That type of coverage, especially in local papers, should be strong evidence that a local restaurant is NOT notable, if anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sourcing obviously fails the portion of WP:N that looks for "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Premeditated Chaos:: I invite you to change your conclusion. The guideline on notability states in WP:AUD that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". This exists per NorthAmerica1000 above, and if it's the state of sourcing actually in the article that bothers you, you can see that I've begun to add more. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "At least one" doesn't mean "if one exists the article must be kept". I went back through and looked at every single source and frankly I don't think it passes. They're almost all local (including a student paper), or they focus mainly on Vimala herself rather than the restaurant. The Grist one is not intellectually independent given that it literally starts by describing Vimala as a friend of the author's. The only really strong source is the segment from Forked. I think it's possible that Vimala herself could swing a GNG/ANYBIO pass, but I don't think the restaurant does. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NorthAmerica1000 passes WP:AUD42.111.196.105 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — 42.111.196.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The Oxford University Press book Forked: A New Standard for American Dining provides significant coverage of both Vimala Rajendran and her cafe.

  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:

  The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

  The Oxford University Press book source is clearly a national or international source. The other sources from the regional newspaper The News & Observer and the local television station WRAL-TV also provide significant coverage. There is significant independent journalistic reporting and analysis. That the journalists included quotes from Vimala Rajendran is standard journalistic practice and does not make the sources non-independent.

  Cunard (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An argument to keep a local street restuarant that has a human interest side with the continued can of worms (OH! now other stuff exists) that everything in the world should be on Wikipedia. A problem is that even if there are local arguements NOTDIRECTORY states "However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.". There is also the specific #6, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations: "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". NOTADVERTISING states "...so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable.". The "University of North Carolina Press" sponsors the quarterly Southern Cultures: The Special Issue on Food. This publication also includes such things as Bernard Herman on Theodore Peed's Turtle Party and Will Sexton's "Boomtown Rabbits: The Rabbit Market in Chatham County, North Carolina,". This doesn't give a green light to have an article by Courtney Lewis on how the "Case of the Wild Onions" paved the way for Cherokee rights... or other local cultural aspects of southern living, These things are also printed by the University of North Carolina Press. This is twisting the local printing, allowed by an otherwise "regional" publisher, to be Wikilawyered into meaning pretty much all things in the world can have an article. Wikipedia:Notability states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

• This article is covered by number 2 with "WP:NOTDIRECTORY" and "WP:NOTADVERTISING". Most universities have a press. LSU ("one of the oldest and most prestigious academic publishers in the South") prints "general interest books about Louisiana and the South" including "Foodways". With the evrything in the world deserves a Wikipedia page mentality I can find an LSU printing of many small businesses, some coverage in the local newspapers, even TV news (as well a YouTube), and can have an article on hundreds of local businesses and twist significant coverage to mean everything in the world. I would cover it better because I would want some neutrality or maybe controversy and provide the Heath Department restaurant inspection. We could likely find similar university or college presses across the US and in fact I am sure we can. However, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines: Not everything in the world deserves a page on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Northamerica1000's comments above. I like 42.111.196.105's mention of WP:AUD. = paul2520 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If anything, I lean deletionist when it comes to businesses, after spending years filtering out spam, but this satisfies WP:N. It's a bit of an unusual topic, half the cafe and half the founder, but the coverage spreads beyond Chapel Hill. I suppose The News and Observer might be considered in the same "region" but it is actually in a completely separate metro area, the Triad, not the Triangle, so it isn't like Greensboro is constantly covering Chapel Hill topics: it has 1.1 million people in the Triad to cover instead. Keep in mind there is a University of NC in both metro areas, UNC and UNCG, so they aren't the same, certainly to those of us that actually live in the Triad or Triangle. Jayaraman's book certainly qualifies and doesn't need further explanation. The book "Southern Cultures" also goes into great detail, so two book citations should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG by themselves. Being a local business, it shouldn't be a shock that most coverage is local, but there is more than adequate other coverage to pass the bar here, and yes, the local coverage matters as well. Google books shows a couple more books have written about the place in varying detail as well, one of which seems to pass WP:SIGCOV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis Brown: the N&O does not cover the Triad. It covers the Triangle. The Triad's paper is the News & Record. I'm unsure why you are talking about UNC Greensboro: this is a Chapel Hill only restaurant that is literally one of three Indian restaurants on the same block and is the least well established of the three (original research there, but sue me for being a Carolina alum). The UNC press is also not out of Greensboro, but is attached to UNC-CH. My concern here as someone who is very familiar with the area is that we could write an article on just about every restaurant in Chapel Hill using this sourcing: the combination of the university, the journalism school, and there being nothing in the town but bars and restaurants means that this coverage is the norm for most of the non-chain places. That shouldn't be what notability is about. If this closes as keep or no consensus, I'll likely try to get it deleted again in a few months (hopefully after NCORP has been beefed up). This is a local shop that has done a good job of promoting itself using feel good human interest pieces, but it isn't an important restaurant even within the small world of the Triangle. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One good thing that will ultimately be decided is the difference between "scholarly publications", that was the intent of the notability standards, and simple "general interest books" published by such nationwide presses. The University of North Carolina Press, a nonprofit publisher of both scholarly and general-interest books and journals. UNC press as well as many others prints these and UNC acknowledges it. We have to have a determination or, since we all know local newspapers cover local restaurants and this has been discussed above, we will have articles on every such small local garages restaurants covered by these type publications across the US. Sounds good to those living in those areas but is not something for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. the coverage is essentially either local or PR, and neither count for notability. The book reference is essentially a mention. I don't seethe content as naïve, I see it as `probably promotional--or possible an naive immitation of promotional. Cute origin stories are not encyclopedic content, but rather the stuff of human interest sections or tabloids. It probably does make sense for us to have greater coverage of restaurants than garages, and it's true we have no fixed standards. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources provided by other editors above show that this passes WP:N. feminist (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.