Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organ Stop Pizza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Organ Stop Pizza
obscure pizza joint in Arizona, non-notable, advertising. wikipediatrix 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable restaurant/company. Certainly fails WP:CORP and the bit about the organ pipe is not enough for this restaurant to warrant its own article hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong, speedy keep - I have added reliable sources on the notability of this establishment, the home of the largest Wurlitzer organ in the world. (Good pizza, too, if you ever get to stop by and try it!) ;) PT (s-s-s-s) 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree it sounds like a very cool place, but a pipe organ doesn't bestow notability. Incidentally, their own website contradicts your claim: it says "one of the largest", not THE largest. wikipediatrix 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can you show me the official WP policy that states that a pipe organ doesn't bestow notability? :) And, if you look further at the website, it does state that the organ is the largest. Also, I have cited a reliable source in a major newspaper about the establishment. It is a landmark in the area, and now that you know about it, and have seen there is reliable info about the location in confirmed sources, why not withdraw your nomination? (by the way, 822 Ghits, 321 unique.)PT (s-s-s-s) 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree it sounds like a very cool place, but a pipe organ doesn't bestow notability. Incidentally, their own website contradicts your claim: it says "one of the largest", not THE largest. wikipediatrix 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for press coverage per criterion 1 of WP:CORP, see e.g. also Stop Pizza. Sandstein 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep seems nn as a pizza joint but the Biggest Aspidistra In World swings it for me. Dlyons493 Talk 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing notable about this company. The organ might be notable, but there isn't anything in this article that couldn't be merged into Wurlitzer. The "one of" qualifier certainly sounds close to being weasel-words. I have been unable to verify the claim that this is the largest Wurlitzer. In any event, there are clearly pipe organs larger than this one. According to this, the largest Wurlitzer is at Radio City Music Hall. Agent 86 21:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please see criterion 1 of WP:CORP. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The Organ Stop article cites one newspaper story, and it's pretty much a puff-piece. WP:CORP is not set in stone and we are not blindly required to stop thinking critically if an article tenuously seems to meet one criterion. The Arizona Republic article does not verify the allegation that the organ is the world's largest. It simply says that it is "billed as the world's biggest Wurlitzer". WP:CORP may not be set in stone, but WP:VERIFY is. Agent 86 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have just added another source, fulfilling the "multiple" portion of the criteria. As for the Wurlitzer debate, there is a lot of conflicting information about who has the biggest organ. I seem to remember boys at school having the same debate... nevertheless, we could always say "disputedly." PT (s-s-s-s) 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Now there just needs to be a media story that isn't trivial. Critical thinking ought to trump blind adherence to WP:CORP. BTW, "disputedly" is still a weasel word. Agent 86 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- How are Phoenix New Times or Arizona Republic "trivial" publications? These articles establish notability. Your reason for deletion was "non-notability." Now that new edits have asserted it's notability, why pretend that it's non-notable? How does an article on a notable establishment tarnish Wikipedia? PT (s-s-s-s) 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please re-read my comments. The story is trivial, not the publication. They're articles on a pizza joint that owns a conversation piece, not articles on a "notable establishment". Puff pieces of local interest do not denote notability, unless there is blind adherence to a guideline. Agent 86 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you actually look at the articles which are cited, you'll realize this is more than just a "pizza joint." This establishment is a local fixture. Significance has been asserted in multiple reliable sources of media coverage. And though this has no bearing on the voting, I can personally testify to the notability of this establishment, having set foot in it and being a member of the community where it is. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please re-read my comments. The story is trivial, not the publication. They're articles on a pizza joint that owns a conversation piece, not articles on a "notable establishment". Puff pieces of local interest do not denote notability, unless there is blind adherence to a guideline. Agent 86 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- How are Phoenix New Times or Arizona Republic "trivial" publications? These articles establish notability. Your reason for deletion was "non-notability." Now that new edits have asserted it's notability, why pretend that it's non-notable? How does an article on a notable establishment tarnish Wikipedia? PT (s-s-s-s) 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Now there just needs to be a media story that isn't trivial. Critical thinking ought to trump blind adherence to WP:CORP. BTW, "disputedly" is still a weasel word. Agent 86 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have just added another source, fulfilling the "multiple" portion of the criteria. As for the Wurlitzer debate, there is a lot of conflicting information about who has the biggest organ. I seem to remember boys at school having the same debate... nevertheless, we could always say "disputedly." PT (s-s-s-s) 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The Organ Stop article cites one newspaper story, and it's pretty much a puff-piece. WP:CORP is not set in stone and we are not blindly required to stop thinking critically if an article tenuously seems to meet one criterion. The Arizona Republic article does not verify the allegation that the organ is the world's largest. It simply says that it is "billed as the world's biggest Wurlitzer". WP:CORP may not be set in stone, but WP:VERIFY is. Agent 86 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please see criterion 1 of WP:CORP. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (otherwise I wouldn't have created it :). Applying CORP to something not created under that guise doesn't seem right to me. It's Notable, it's verifiable. I am not associated with the facility in any way, so it can't be Spam. I'd understand if this were my, oh...5,000th edit or so...but since I'm approaching 10k, I think it's safe to assume I'm telling the truth about not being SPAM. :) Wikibofh(talk) 04:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep due to notable rarity. These types of places used to dot the landscape of America, but AFAIK, they are a vanishing breed. —Viriditas | Talk 08:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable and verifiable. It has been covered by multiple non-trivial works, and multiple times at that. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per Aguerriero, my thoughts exactly. --Wine Guy Talk 21:38, 22 July 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.
