Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:38, 19 September 2007

Mzoli's Meats

Mzoli's Meats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. My prodding reason was: Non-notable restaurant with minor press coverage. We are not the white pages and we are not a travel guide. ^demon 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparently a notable restaurant, cites a few sources, remember that it is in South Africa and thus probably doesn't have lots of coverage on the internet. I'm sure we can find more sources for this with a little research, the article was only created today. See also Jimbo's comment. Melsaran (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If any other editor had created that article and made that comment, the response would (or should) have been "so what? - give me notability and reliable sources". ELIMINATORJR 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• True, but I think that Jimbo understands our notability guidelines and that he would not create an advertising article :) just an idea. Melsaran (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, people are trying to give Jimbo some god-like status and put him above the rules. ^demon 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• That the article was created by Jimbo may be irrelevant but the fact it was created by a long standing contributor familiar with our policies is significant. This article was not created by someone new to Misplaced Pages or with an agenda to promote the subject. Might have been worth giving this one a bit more time to be sourced before deleting/AfDing it. WjBscribe 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• South Africa is probaly the country in africa that sources can be found the most. Jaranda 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - it is undoubtedly a notable South African restaurant. Whether it is notable internationally is less clear. But then there are restaurants in the USA that I have never heard of that have articles, so why not one in South Africa that I have never heard of? Carcharoth 17:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wasn't Jimbo the one who said we need to stop using {{fact}} and either source it or remove it? As it stands, we've got a non-notable restaurant with almost no sourcing, and the only reason people are scrambling to keep it is because Jimbo authored the original. ^demon 18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; in spite of Jimbo's rave reiviews (j/k), I don't know just how notable it is. It definitely needs build-up, which I dont see the sources for. Could someone search the Afrikaaner edition maybe??? - CobaltBlueTony 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm the author of this version, Jimbo Wales of the original version. The place is clearly one of the more notable establishments in Capetown, South Africa, the subject of considerable coverage. It is a famous place (as per the source, which keeps getting deleted) that is known thorughout South Africa and attracts important politicians and well-known entertainers. It is also a gathering place for the city and nation, and an important example of a black-owned busines that is part of South Africa's new economic development programs. The primary source, "Youth Radio", is a reliable source even if the reporters are in their late teens - does Wikipedida have a bias against young people? It's an internationally syndicated radio program that practices serious journalism and is broadcast on NPR stations, among others. The original version of the article, which I have not seen, was deleted almost instantly. In the past few minutes since this completely new article was created it has been proposed for speedy deletion twice three times as spam, blatant advertising, attacked as non-notable, had its sources challenged, etc. This is a real article about a real, notable business that has received international press. It's sourced. If it's deficient it can be expanded and improved. I've never seen a neutral, informative article under such fierce attack so quickly. I can only surmise that this has something to do with Jimbo Wales being the one who created the first version, and perhaps some lack of understanding about South Africa. A comparable establishment in the United States would not be proposed for deletion. In that case, all of these challenges suffer from WP:POINT. Wikidemo 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• week delete - if there is only one reliable secondary media coverage (this article) then I lean to deletion. Yall can't just claim it's notable... we need to see the evidence that it's notable. 1 article doesn't cut it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There's more news coverage, concerning the restaurant owner's family (daughter kidnapped, son killed), but also about a big police raid at the restaurant. Perhaps some of this could/should be incorporated into the article. —David Eppstein 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's more local; stuff like that happens everyewhere. Is there an international spin on these events? - CobaltBlueTony 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Must every Misplaced Pages article be internationally notable? Marco Borsato is arguably the most popular singer in the Netherlands, but he is not known at all in other countries. Melsaran (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very comfortable about sourcing an article about a business to news coverage of a tragedy involving the family that run it. WjBscribe 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, for now. Jimbo has mentioned looking for sources, and per WP:RUBBISH, this is a surmountable problem. He has already mentioned a desire to fix; why not give him a chance to do so? We can revisit this AfD in time if it isn't fixed. =David_(contribs) 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm the one that contested the prod, saying that we should give it a bit more than a few hours before pushing for its deletion. *shrug* At least now we've got seven days... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Mzoli's is notable, and "becoming an international legend." --Aude (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Travel guides aren't really reliable sources Jaranda 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Give the article a chance, don't pounce within a few hours of creation. Timrollpickering 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - nominating something for deletion just two hours after it was created by a respected Wikipedian (who clearly stated that more content would be forthcoming) is plain rude. I've half a mind to snowball keep this. Even worse - you speedied it?! Seriously?! violet/riga (t) 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see the speedy deletion as shocking in any way. Speedy deletion of articles in the state that it was speedied, so soon after creation, with a comment from the creator saying more is coming, happens routinely and is necessary to prevent Misplaced Pages from filling with cruft. The only thing that makes this case unusual in that respect is the article's creator. If you don't want your new article deleted, you should assert and source some notability from the start, which the speedied version didn't. But anyway, we should be debating the article as it exists now or as it could be improved, not as it was when it was speedied. —David Eppstein 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It was rude and far too hasty. violet/riga (t) 21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable retraunt, not to mention Jimbo is watching... Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that Jimbo wrote it is irrelevant. Jimbo holds just as much authority as any other editor (or administrator, at best) in pretty much any situation (including this one), with the exception of very specific instances. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The point isn't that it was Jimbo, the point is that it was someone who knows the rules. They aren't just adding their favorite restaurant to the Wiki, they're adding an article that they're honestly planning to source later. Most of the CSD tags are by editors who don't have such plans. We need to give our trusted editors a chance to source something they've added; otherwise, it becomes a race to see who can type the fastest, the prodder or the sourcer. =David_(contribs) 23:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir, my friend; I'm all for keeping the article (I wouldn't have removed the prod if I wasn't). I'm just trying to de-mystify the fact that Jimbo did it. I whole-heartedly agree with your assessment that Jimbo is, in this case, no more important than you or I. "Wiki regular" is the exact "pedestal" he should be on right now, but I don't think everyone is treating him as such. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies for the misunderstanding. I agree; there is no cabal. And no king, either. He gets no special treatment, but that goes in the positive and negative direction. =David_(contribs) 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen many AFDs in my days. The response this one has generated is unique. I find it hard to believe that Jimbo's presence here hasn't influenced this debate.. I mean, look at all of these "wait and see" type !votes? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; this has become quite unique. I'd like to think I would give any established editor the same chance; maybe I'll someday have a chance to explore that. I daresay some people who have voted on this page have given it special consideration, but I think the same argument could be made of those who vote for deletion; in their haste to prove themselves fair, unbiased and not a member of the Cabal, some may have rushed to enter a "delete" vote simply because Jimbo is the creator of Misplaced Pages. I think bias is an often unavoidable part of life; but, as both sides are probably similarly biased, they probably cancel one another out, allowing the clearer heads to prevail. =David_(contribs) 07:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is unfortunately not eligible for a WP:SNOWBALL keep but I think we can manage to give the article some time to improve. Burntsauce 23:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If Jimmy Wales has evidence of this establishment receiving non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable sources, it would be greatly appreciated if he could cite such coverage. Right now the only mention by a RELIABLE source is in passing, and the remaining references are very, very weak. I suggest this be re-listed for deletion in a few weeks time if there isn't any traction made in this regard. Thanks! Burntsauce 23:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The blog doesn't look like a RS but you are saying the youth radio station isn't either? Wikidemo thinks it is. Kappa 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for me. For those seeking additional sources, there is an article available at Newsbank which may be of interest:

Sasha Planting. "A taste of ekasi. Mzoli's Butchery". Financial Mail (South Africa). 15 September 2006. 20. Zagalejo 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (It's also available here: .)

• Delete I'm pretty sure that all the keep votes were because Jimbo created the article, there is only one independent, reliable source found in the debate so far, not really enough. The remainiding references are either blogs, travel guides and local reviews, which I don't see why these references are "independent". WP:BIAS doesn't apply nither as if it was an average american resterant, it would have been speedied, and if it wasn't created by Jimbo, speedied, or at least flooded with delete votes. If wikipedia keeps articles on every resterant that ever had a review in a newspager or travel guide and consider them "reliable sources", then we would have millions of articles. Jaranda 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Did you read the other votes? Don't assume we're all Jimbo sycophants. I'd do the same for any reasonably established and trusted editor. You included. Conversely, if this were obvious cruft written by Jimbo, my vote would've been delete. =David_(contribs) 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Frankly, I would have loved to vote delete, just to put Jimbo in his place. But the sources, though scant in number, do suggest that this place is a major part of Cape Town culture. It's not a neighborhood pizza joint we're talking about here. Zagalejo 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We do have millions of articles! Carcharoth 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean million of articles on non-notable resterants, the issue is that it seems like if it was a normal user editing the article, it would be flooded with delete votes right now. Jaranda 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. Again, read the comments. And please don't assume we're being sycophantic or naive. =David_(contribs) 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And I did read all the comments, one reliable source, and several not so good sources doesn't indicate an article can be written. Jaranda 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RUBBISH. It's been one day. =David_(contribs) 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok it seems like we are both in violation of WP:RUBBISH :p, as it been one day is part of it, my delete still stands Jaranda 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps; fair enough. But as my Keep still stands, it seems we are at a stalemate. You could surrender, if you like.  :-) =David_(contribs) 07:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously a unique establishment worth an article. Fred Bauder 01:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, looks like 2 RS's (Youth Radio and Financial Mail). Also the Cape Times quote shows it's not just a random restaurant. Kappa 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Once again, admins run amok are trying to grant themselves god-like status and put themselves above the rules. Reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Misplaced Pages:Notability standard and consensus seems rather clear on the subject. Alansohn 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, nobody granted themselves god-like status. The article was deleted when it did not have even an assertion of notability, the current version is not what was deleted. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Uhh, article at creation of AfD provided sources and made claim of notability, and rejection of clear consensus continues after clear claims of notability were backed up by additional sources. Alansohn 04:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

...wait, where is there a rejection of consensus? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn, what is your problem? This whole scenario happens on a regular basis and so far I can't see a single admin action haven't taken place. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be locally notable. Cardamon 09:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seriously, Jimbo may not be god like but he is the fricken foundation of this project. If we can no longer assume good faith from Jimbo himself, then we need to fire the admins and lock down the database as the inmates have overrun the asylum. --I already forgot 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? Your comment makes NO sense, friend. Burntsauce 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is that? Users often point out that Jimbo shouldn't receive special treatment because of some "God like" status. Jimbo started the article and stated he needed help looking for refs to establish notability and a few hours later the article is AFD because of notability. One would think the community would assume good faith for wikipedia's founder, however, it seems that mostly the admins are pushing to delete article instead of helping with Jimbo's request to keep it. I think listing it for AFD so quickly after being created is poor judgment given the circumstances so it looks like an attempt to single out the creator or to make a point that Jimbo is not above other editors. I'm a little burnt out with people trying to make a point or push an opinion here on wikipedia so I was trying to keep it short with a little reading between the lines. Does the long version make any sense? If not, please kindly take it over to my talk page. --I already forgot 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with fire. On the basis of sources provided, this restaurant is self-evidently non-notable. "Cherryflava" is not what I would call a reliable source, Youth Radio is much more impressive but is only one source, and the Cape Times article contains only a passing mentions. Blogs don't cut it either, I believe: nor do brief blurbs in the equivalent of London Lite. Moreschi 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, my blog is non-notable, but it is a very busy place that is a landmark in the township. Folks, this is a Butchery - the restaurant part of it is an outside eatery with about 10 barbeques attached. It is a local magnet for other businesses, like liquor. This is in no way comparable to an American Diner. I would (vaguely) compare it to Jimmy's Harborside Restaurant in Boston for example. I do not see a wikipedia article for that, but there should be. Wizzy…☎ 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• As the nominator states, We are not a travel guide. A few blog entries, and one or two other notes on a restaurant hardly make it "notable". For instance, dependent on location, when a restaurant opens, it generally will get a small article in a local newspaper touting the opening. Then once it opens, there will generally be a review of the food/atmosphere, etc. Then for a good restaurant, it will probably win various awards which will be listed in a newspaper, culinary journal, or the like. And on top of that, any other blog entries of patrons, owners, or food critics. A restaurant such as Tavern on the Green 21 Club, or even Uno Chicago Grill would receive enough coverage to make it notable, and I don't think Mzoli's qualifies. We are not a directory of restaurants, white pages, or yellow pages. Until it recieves more coverage, I am inclined to opine delete. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. But, you see, as the article says, this is more than just a restaurant, so judging it as a restaurant is the wrong approach. Carcharoth 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not a travel or restaurant guide. The sources seem insufficient to substantiate notability. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Notable is a relative term. If there was a limit of like say each language encyclopedia gets 10,000 articles and no more, then this one and the following random articles would not be included, Homalium longifolium Tufi Airport Bangoka International Airport Henry F. May Donation of Sutri. However since there are 2,000,000 articles I would categorize Mzoli's Meats as within the 2,000,000 most notable subjects to use for an article. 199.125.109.35 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• The number of articles is irrelevant. What's relevant is the question of the notability of this article. You can't simply declare notability, you must establish it with reliable sources. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if you are only allowed to have 100 articles your standards for notability are different than if you are allowed to have 100,000,000 articles. 199.125.109.35 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, since we are allowed to have any number of articles. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per comments above. ↔NMajdan•talk 20:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Marginally notable at best. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'm gonna have to say delete. It may be locally notable, but like multiple arguments, we're not a travel guide (I figured I won't add the link since it's on here a million times). Sorry Jimbo.... —Signed by KoЯnfan71 _{Sign Here!} 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Everyking 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete With Fire, if anyone but King James had started this arty it would have been cast into the memory hole within an hour. Doubt this? Then test it by starting an article on a local restaurant you like and see how long it remains alive.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a local restaurant that Jimbo likes. It appears to be a restaurant-with-a-difference (ie. butcher's and nightclub and start up enterprise) that he thought would make a good subject for a Misplaced Pages article, linking to and covering subjects such as development aid, different business models, and celebrity culture in Cape Town. It might be fairly characterized as a "tourist restaurant that caught Jimbo's eye", but not a "local restaurant". Carcharoth 11:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's probably true, but that doesn't mean that the article shouldn't exist. This could set a good precedent towards keeping similar articles. Everyking 03:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The precedent has already been established, my friend; Delete... Far better written and better sourced articles on far more notable subjects have been.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I note that your edit summary says "Category:Restaurants Jimbo Likes" - this is again mischaracterizing the issue. See my comment above. I get the impression Jimbo went to this restaurant, or was told about it, while he was in South Africa, and decided to try and start an article. See here: "currently in South Africa for a digital freedom tour" and "There's way too much advertising and they're not really respecting their own community." (he said that about MySpace, but the comment may be ironic given this AfD). See also the Signpost article here: "I think that we still have a long way to go in African languages. Toward that end, I am going 3 times in the next 9 months to South Africa (twice at my own expense) to help promote the growth of Misplaced Pages in the languages of South Africa". Now, some people might say that he should have started this article in the local language encyclopedia, but this brings us back to the question of whether notability is local or not. Well, notability obviously can be local, but how does this affect Misplaced Pages. I once voted delete on an article about a Brazilian DJ, saying if that person was notable in Brazil, the Portuguese-language Misplaced Pages should have an article on him (that's the language in Brazil), but there are many people who think that anything considered notable should have an article in all language wikipedias. Carcharoth 11:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Non-notable restaurant. I understand that it's hard to find sources about stuff in Africa, but it's not impossible. Until more press coverage is found, the article should stay deleted. I, of course, have no problem with it being re-created if/when reliable sources are found. --Agüeybaná 02:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I read that if the article was created by any other user, that it would have been deleted immediately. If so, why do we have so many completely un-refed Restaurant stubs on wikipedia? --I already forgot 04:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, see nothing here that shows for notability per WP:ORG except very minor press coverage, Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide, and an article can't get kept solely because Jimbo wrote it - hopefully the closing admin will take this into account. A lot of the keep arguments here (some of which cite Jimbo having written the article) are mostly invalid. This is also not a speedy keep candidate. --Coredesat 04:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I should note that the Financial Mail article is not a restaurant review, but more of a description of how popular the place has become, with all of its celebrity patrons. That should count as a non-trivial, reliable source. The Youth Radio report is a competent piece which aired on Marketplace, and should count as well. So, we do have multiple non-trivial sources, (two = multiple), and it doesn't seem like anyone has even attempted to look for non-English sources (eg, Afrikaans, Xhosa, etc.) Considering the claims in the sources we do have, I'd be very surprised if there isn't more written about this place somewhere. Zagalejo 05:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete Until more sources to establish notability is found, the restaurant is not notable. Just because Jimbo created it dosen't mean it is automatically exemmpt from the guidelines on notability. He may be one of the founders of Misplaced Pages and well-respected within Misplaced Pages but that does not mean he is the "wiki-god" and exempt from the rules. --Hdt83 07:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I trust the closing admin will discount all arguments mentioning Jimbo, both the keeps and the deletes. Unfortunately, because it was created by Jimbo, this has created a cause celebre, with much more attention than normal. I really hope people do look for South African sources, and look at articles like Ben Franks and Espresso Essential Scotland (from Category:Restaurant stubs). I know that the existence of similar articles that should be deleted is not an argument, but I'm saying that many of those restaurant stubs are notable, despite appearances, and this is a similar example. In other words, I'm saying that other, similar, stubs exist, and that they should all be kept! Carcharoth 07:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Regardless of author, Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject has been cited in the article. Notability according to WP:N has been established and the Nomination has been satisfied, case closed. - Fosnez 09:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Places and transportation)
• AfD debates