Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Tea Court

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. Concerns about the article's claims may warrant further investigation, but coverage seems to be here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Tea Court

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

Non-notable company. Claims of notability (the "first authentic tearoom in San Francisco's Chinatown") are not verified, and even if verified, are somewhat specific to denote general notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I added six refs to support the stub article, including the NY Times, Fodor's guidebook, the Atlantic Magazine, and several books. There are plenty of other references out there, it clearly meets WP:GNG. References refer to it as not only the first authentic tearoom in San Francisco, but in the entire United States. GregJackP Boomer! 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The added references really improve the article, and the company seems notable enough. However it really needs to be expanded. Ensignricky Talk 20:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few more references - it has gotten some notice locally (the article didn't mention that they are no longer in Chinatown, but in two other locations). But I am torn on this one. My problem is, I don't believe the hype about being "the first authentic tearoom in San Francisco's Chinatown". I grew up in the Bay Area and this sounds to me like BS, possibly based on a self-serving definition of "authentic". The place has only been in business since 1993 (according to one source) or 1983 (according to another source), so "first" seems very unlikely. The claim has three references, but two are not checkable online and the third doesn't seem to mention them; in any case, sources will probably just repeat what the owners told them. So chalk me up as skeptical about this place, despite it having garnered a few local reviews. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try these refs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. It may be hype, but it is well sourced. GregJackP Boomer! 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, almost half of those references do say "first traditional Chinese tea house" or something equivalent. Like there was never a "traditional Chinese tea house" in the 150-year history of San Francisco Chinatown? Color me still skeptical. I am not calling for deletion because this place does seem to have sufficient coverage, but I can't bring myself to say "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that it is hype, but we use what RS sources say, don't we? GregJackP Boomer! 14:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In evaluating the reliability of the source, if we find that the source is just repeating the restaurant's own hype, perhaps we can evaluate that the source isn't reliable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The added sources and the references listed here all appear to be run of the mill reviews and guidebook entries for a local restaurant. I agree with Melanie's skepticism that a city with San Francisco's long association with the Chinese-American community cannot have waited until 1993 for its first "authentic teahouse" to open. I suspect that "fact" is just so much advertising hype that has been accepted unquestioningly by the review and guidebook writers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:57, 3 September 2013 (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.