Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tavares (restaurant)

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. (Nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tavares (restaurant)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "probably old enough for notability". I am afraid just being old is not enough, this needs to be discussed a significant by reliable sources - for example on Portuguese cuisine and its history, etc. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any, and that claim is self-published. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A legitimately famous restaurant. The Portuguese Wikipedia article has more details, sourced to a thorough 2011 article in Público [1]. And there's a lengthy 1987 article in The New York Times about the restaurant's history and renovation; it refers to the place as "a kind of national landmark". [2]. Clear pass of GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fully agree with Arxiloxos. Besides that, it was featured in the work of Eça de Queiroz, and it's been actually classified as a national landmark. Comte0 (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom. [3] is sufficient to show notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 5 December 2017 (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.