Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zabar's

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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 07:06Z

[edit] Zabar's

Zabar's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Doesn't appear notable to me. It does attempt to assert notability, otherwise I would have used WP:CSD#A7, however I don't think it is sufficently notable to warrant inclusion in WP. Guinness 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN --Wildnox(talk) 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral after the comments below, I'm on the fence. --Wildnox(talk) 20:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 135,000 Google hits for "Zabar's", with 27 of the first 30 being related to the grocery, and 744 of the first 1,000 hits are unique. "Zabar's"+"Upper West Side" gets 16,800 hits (surely all of which are relevant) with 692 of 1,000 uniques. This is not a keep !vote, but merely a note that some of these hits probably assert some amount of notability. -- Kicking222 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - extremely prominent and well-known institution, local I suppose but New York City has quite a number of people in it - article needs expansion, I'm not the right person to do it but the right person will come along. Newyorkbrad 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Well known doesn't mean that it's notable. It certainly doesn't IMHO meet WP:CORP. WP:LOCAL suggests that an article on a local subject must be full and comprehensive for it to have its own article. If somebody were to make it so, I'd be happy to withdraw the nom, but until and unless that happens.... Guinness 20:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete Claims are completely unreferenced. If they could be verified, I would change my vote. Shimeru 20:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that a source has been provided and it seems likely more might be added. Shimeru 03:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well referenced in New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not well (at all) cited in the article itself. (By which, it doesn't even meet WP:VERIFY either). It may well be that the subject is worthy of inclusion, not being from New York, I wouldn't know that, but the article itself in its current state is certainly not IMHO worthy of inclusion. Guinness 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: a better way to say this is, "If you have the time, could you please add those citations to the article so that we preserve evidence of notability?" It is very frustrating to see an AFD nom, point out that there are available references, and then to get "Well, they're not in the article yet, are they?" which seems counterproductive.--Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That may be true, but that wasn't the motivation for the nom, and I wasn't aware of available references. It's about article quality. At the time of the nom, the article simply wasn't good enough for WP, and didn't meet inclusion criteria. Now it is. (Kudos to Dhartung and Norton for making it so). Guinness 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Understood, and I did see that you withdrew the nom, which is not a marker of a stubborn nominator, to say the least! (Another suggestion I thought of (that I'd like to see more) is "Okay, I'll withdraw the nom if those references are added".) Anyway, this is definitely ready for a speedy close. --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I will add more after the holiday dinner. And I invite Guinness2702 to New York City to sample their blintzes hot from the frying pan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
• Keep Per Norton and Kicking. Edison 20:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep famous. - crz crztalk 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Zabar's is a venerable institution on the Upper West Side, mentioned in many novels, appearing in movies such as You've Got Mail, and so on. 481 Google Books hits. About.com's food editor calls it a top ten online gourmet food vendor.[1] It should be easy to source any claims in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw nom Okay, the NYT article establishes enough notability for me. I still think it needs expansion and improvement, but I guess it's sufficient for it not to be deleted. Guinness 23:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This discussion is now in such a state that WP:Speedy Keep can be applied. Guinness 09:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, in case there's any question. As notable (and as well-documented) as any grocery store could be. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable New York City establishment, that is well-referenced in The New York Times and elsewhere. And can you pick up a pound of lox for me while you're there... Alansohn 19:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, anything else? Terence Ong 06:42, 26 December 2006 (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.