Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidewalk cafe

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalk cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

"Sidewalk cafe" is a common vocabulary term and does not warrant an encyclopedia article. This article adds no value to Wikipedia, and makes it difficult for people to take us seriously. Eric ^talk 13:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No case to answer per WP:BELONG. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP It is a topic that can be well expanded with different local, national, and cultural perspectives. See Cha chaan teng for example of a similar casual dining establishments but local/cultural specific. Acnetj (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe I didn't explain myself well in my original nomination. "Sidewalk cafe" is a combination of two common vocabulary words to create an unambiguous, self-explanatory term that does not require an encyclopedia article to define it. Eric ^talk 01:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The term may seem unambiguous but sidewalk cafes are generally considered a very desirable feature and often there's a separate planning and administrative considerations around it in many cities. That alone is worthy to keep this page. Acnetj (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well I probably agree that Pavement cafe is worthy of an article, even if it has been named Sidewalk cafe without marking the article's proper name ... seriously, this is an important type of cafe, and richly documented in reliable sources, which is what counts. I've added a mention of France and Italy, cited to The Guardian; the article is absurdly New York-topheavy, and needs internationalising, but it doesn't need deleting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neither the original reason for nomination claiming that it is a common vocabulary term or the unsubstantiated claim that it adds no value to Wikipedia etc. seem valid. The additional comment by the nominator claiming that "Sidewalk cafe" is a combination of two common vocabulary words to create an unambiguous, self-explanatory term also does not seem to be a valid reason for deletion. Sidewalk cafe is used as an independent subject in official documents like the New York City Charter and Administrative Code and other similar documents. I'm not sure that WP:BEFORE was properly done. A quick search reveals that it has also received in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources like for example this book or this article by the Chicago Suntimes, Seattle's government, or The city of Austin, etc... Since the article does not violate WP:ISNOT I see no reason to justify deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The mere fact that people have written about sidewalk cafes and codified them in municipal ordinances does not mean that we need an article to explain what they are. A sidewalk cafe is a cafe that has seating on the sidewalk (or pavement). That's it. People go to Wikipedia to learn more about a topic. Unless they just landed on the planet, they aren't going to learn anything from this article. Well, ok, they might learn from reading this rich tapestry of information, "Popular sidewalk cafe activities", that people write things on the internet without supervision. Eric ^talk 12:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just learnt these are called sidewalk cafes! Would it perhaps be better to merge with Street food? Hintswen  Talk | Contribs  12:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Ha! Very good. Whoodathunk we'd have that one?! You might enjoy these tasty nuggets: Car door, Death threat, Headlight flashing. Eric ^talk 13:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ Eric, the fact that multiple reliable sources have non-trivial coverage about sidewalk cafes, means that the topic meets our general notability guidelines for inclusion, and since the article does not violate what Wikipedia is not I still see no valid reason for deletion. Do you have any policy based reason that would apply here? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon: Regrettably, I know of nothing in our policies that would call for deletion. I just think the article is fluff. It would be nice if someone who can take it seriously would nix the popular activities section. That is embarrassing to us. Thanks to all for weighing in. Eric ^talk 11:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nixed. There may be scope for cited discussion of activities in pavement cafes but it wouldn't look like that sorry section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Eric: I agree, and I also think that the article needs to be further improved. Regards, --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think Chiswick Chap and Crystallizedcarbon have it right. The topic is documentable and worthy of inclusion. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of sources about NYC cafes. I'd love to see more information about France, Spain, and even South America. We have lots of articles that many people consider to be fluff, or even silly, but are as notable as this concept. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree with the nomination's explanation. By this reasoning, we shouldn't have a firefighter article since 'person who fights fires' is self-explanatory; however, there's a complexity and history not covered by that definition. I will agree article is lacking in depth and a worldwide viewpoint, but I believe this article could be improved and made into a quality article that could inform beyond the basic definition of 'outdoor cafe on sidewalk'.--The Navigators (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have reached the SNOW point where a swift closure would be appropriate, if anyone would care to do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.