Directory:Mzoli's Meats

Mzoli's Meats is the favorite butchery of Jimbo Wales.

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. The article has improved considerably from the AfD'd version, with plenty of sourcing that seems (now) to meet the spirit if not the actual letter of WP:N. Those sources can and should be vetted and improved. This early close is an attempt to stem the flash flood of vitriol—far too much bile has been spewed from both those that favor deletion and those that wish to keep the article. Since there is clearly no consensus to delete, it's my opinion that closing this forum (a discussion that quickly devolved into rants, counter-rants, and all-around assumptions of bad faith) is appropriate as other venues would be better suited to discuss the underlying and clearly emotionally charged issues that have been brought forward. A future AfD may be better suited to a measured analysis of policy and community concerns, but this has clearly lost its way. — Scientizzle 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mzoli's Meats

Template:La – (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^{[omg plz]} 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)

• There appears to be no lower limit to groveling before the throne of the God-King. Wales is the owner of a for-profit wiki business so I think he knows exactly how to advertise in wiki format. What next? Burger bars, hotdog stands? The article is advertising pure and simple. --91.84.57.220 13:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This comment wins my personal prize for the most humorous one in the entire debate. Yeah, I traveled all the way to South Africa, went into a black township, purchased a restaurant, and spammed Wikipedia. Yeah. :-) --Jimbo Wales 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, people are trying to give Jimbo some god-like status and put him above the rules. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{wat's sup Sports!} 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to me this debate should have nothing to do with Jimbo (that we dont focus on the inititator of an article in afd's is standard procedure) and everything to do with our covergae of Africa and the "third world" in general, SqueakBox 19:57, 19 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^{[omg plz]} 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 Wikipedia 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^(talk)_(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." [1] --Aude (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Travel guides aren't really reliable sources Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 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 Wikipedia 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^(talk)_(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^(talk)_(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 Wikipedia. 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^(talk)_(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: [2].)

• 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 ^{wat's sup Sports!} 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^(talk)_(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 ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. Again, read the comments. And please don't assume we're being sycophantic or naive. =David^(talk)_(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 ^{wat's sup Sports!} 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RUBBISH. It's been one day. =David^(talk)_(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 ^{wat's sup Sports!} 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^(talk)_(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 Wikipedia: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)
      • Thank you for elaborating on this. I'm a bit conflicted on how to respond, but let me just say that this is how administrators normally treat any other article on Wikipedia, and for the first time in my life I am witnessing Jimbo Wales, our lord and savior, experiencing the exact same process every other editor here gets to endure. $0.02 Burntsauce 17:06, 19 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 ^Talk 11:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why isnt Cherry flava (which I added as a ref) notbale? Sure it's African but we dont dfemand a higher standard of inclusion for African websites than we do for American ones, SqueakBox 22:00, 19 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. Wikipedia 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)
  • Comment That would prove controversial as it would mean deleting hundreds of thousands of articles in the English language. Let us not confuse being an encyclopedia in English with being one about the English speasking world because we are not the latter, SqueakBox 20:18, 19 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 ^{My Talk} _{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)
  • 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 below. 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" (March 2007) and "There's way too much advertising and they're not really respecting their own community." (same date, he said that about MySpace, but the comment may be ironic given this AfD). See also the Signpost article here (September 2007): "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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. I once voted delete on an article about a Brazilian DJ, saying if that person was notable in Brazil, the Portuguese-language Wikipedia 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)
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)
• 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and well-respected within Wikipedia but that does not mean he is the "wiki-god" and exempt from the rules. --Hdt83 ^Chat 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)
• Comment - see here for my comments on why this is not just "a restaurant Jimbo likes". The notability question is nuanced and difficult to get an objective answer to. The main point I want to make here is that this whole AfD is a classic case of not being courteous to newcomers. I know Jimbo is not a newcomer (obviously!), so let me explain by quoting from the guideline:

  "All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing." (my emphasis)

  For established editors, it only takes a few minutes to discuss something on someone's talk page, instead of putting an article up for deletion, especially if it was recently created. That would be closer to the spirit in which Wikipedia was founded, as opposed to what is being said at this AfD. If a new editor had created this article, imagine what effect this AfD would have on them. Carcharoth 12:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful information and well sourced. futurebird 12:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I just read A Day in the Life of an Article and while I'm not surprised (it's happened to me), I think it is outrageous what transpired. Someone should loose their adminship over this. Editors should be given time to develop an article, in particular when they leave a note saying they need some time! Forget all the rules, it is just common courtesy and being respectful - there are too many users on Wikipedia who use the rules to the letter to act like jerks and a-holes, which drives away good civil people and is increasingly leaving Wikipedia a wasteland of miscreants and/or teaching them how to behave that way. -- 71.191.36.194 13:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

<joke>You're afraid of chasing Jimbo away?!</joke> Jon513 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone should lose their adminship because they nominated an article for deletion? Please. Let's keep things in perspective here. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Why do people keep saying that this article was speedy deleted? I checked the logs, nothing by this name was ever deleted. Burntsauce 17:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The speedy deletion happened under a different name. The right log. —David Eppstein 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- per Jwale's comment on the talk page. The sunder king 18:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep we have such little copverage of Africa (and in comparison such bloated coverage of America) that it is a shame that this notable place is even considered for deletion, SqueakBox 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly the fact that I wrote the article is not a reason to keep or delete it, but it certainly seems to be a good reason for some people to engage in shockingly bad faith behavior. This is not my "favorite local restaurant" (I don't live in Cape Town), and indeed not even my favorite restaurant in Cape Town (that would be Five Flies, which does not have an article and does not need an article). And yes, Wikipedia is not a travel guide or anything of the sort. This restaurant is not notable for the food but for the cultural impact it is having in South Africa, and interesting internationally because it is a standard exemplar of some positive changes that are finally starting to take place in South Africa. I was taken there by a reporter for a national t.v. network. It's notable for all those reasons. Everyone who said "uh, duh, Jimbo probably knows that Wikipedia is not a travel guide" were exactly right. You can dispute the article on the merits of the notability (though not successfully, I think), but the assumptions of bad faith in this argument are just shocking. Some people should excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby.--Jimbo Wales 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And some editors should excuse themselves also for placing a higher weight on your edits than others, but who am I to battle over who's worthy to contribute? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo says I should leave the project, then I'm leaving the project. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as I do Jaranda that that isn't necessary at all. --Deskana (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's rather obvious that it was meant on me and ^demon, as we are the users who argued for deletion the most here, seriously if Jimbo doesn't want me here, then fuck it. There is no place for deletionists here in wikipedia anyways, every nn resterant like this, and useless lists is being kept Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You've had your chance to advance a case for deleting that list, and evidently the community doesn't agree with your rationale (at least, not as of the time I write this). That's not a flaw in the system, it's an example of the system functioning properly. If you're only willing to acknowledge a consensus when that consensus happens to be heading in your direction, then that's a problem. I would rather see you here and editing productively, but from the kinds of things you're saying right now, it seems like you might benefit from a break so that you can re-evaluate the project and your place in it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a deletionist and weanting to deletre this article are 2 different things, there are IMO hundreds of thousands of article more worthy of deletion than this. Let alone speedy deletion. Is it that we dont want to give serious coverage to Africa and other third world places? SqueakBox 20:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusionists and deletionists balance the debate. Of course there's a reason. Neither side is going to be happy; that's why we're an encyclopedia of consensus. Compromise, give and take; it's how the 'pedia works. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Several editors, including myself, complained about your actions not because it was Jimbo but because it was a long-term, respected user. If you had done it to any admin or person that's been here for several years and knows the policies very well I would still have voted keep based on the haste with which these deletions have taken place. violet/riga (t) 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even delete the article, it was ^demon Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment was to ^demon and not you. violet/riga (t) 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A crappy unsourced article is a crappy unsourced article. It doesn't matter who writes it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but when said editor specifically states that there will be more forthcoming it is rude to speedy it after such a short amount of time and without notifying that editor. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question for Jimbo: You stated for the record, "I was taken there by a reporter for a national t.v. network. It's notable for all those reasons." The fact that you were taken there by a reporter for a national television network makes it somehow more notable? Or did you mis-type? Mahalo, Jimbo. --Ali'i 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the notability or otherwise of this article (and the original speedy was entirely correct), let's assume bad faith on the part of sysops who are trying their best to prevent Wikipedia sliding down the slippery slope from "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the occasionally free repository of trivia that anyone can edit". Just great. Don't retire over this issue, Jaranda, though frankly I don't blame you. ELIMINATORJR 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per most of the other Keep comments, including the substantive portion of Jimbo Wales's Keep rationale discussing why he created the article. I am constrained to note, though, that the tone of some of Jimbo's remarks here is unhelpful; I particularly hope he will withdraw his last sentence. Newyorkbrad 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think what Jimbo said was certainly acceptable and perfectly correct. If users are willing to assume bad faith when the author of an article clearly understands the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they should either rethink their comments or leave the project entirely. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 19:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I believe the article has sufficient reliable sources covering it significantly to assert notability especially considering that it is more difficult to find sources for places in Africa than in say, America. Davewild 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article is verifiable. It asserts notability, and I would agree that it's style is unusual enough to merit an article. Physchim62 (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Subject clearly meets WP:N - Factiva search renders quite a number of useful hits. For some reason, most of them are cited as "Mzoli's Place" rather than Mzoli's Meats, which only turns up 4 hits. Factiva's lack of South African coverage prior to mid-to-late-2006 is an obstacle to finding more, but those in the country may be able to improve it. Orderinchaos 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Mzoli's Meat also has more hits on Google than Mzoli's Meats. Possibly the name of the article should be changed? Cardamon 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm sure lack of internet coverage is a result of subject bias. OMG I might have to get off a console to find a source!cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: You may also try linking up with someone in Category:Wikipedians in South Africa or subcats, as they may be able to get more info as well. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the article does cite multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources, so it does meet notability criteria, no matter who wrote it. Yes, some of the sources used are not reliable, but given the nature of the subject there must be more paper sources out there. Hut 8.5 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see we have an out of process deletion [3] with an extraordinary edit summary. i was just about to add a source. What gives? SqueakBox 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This explains what happened. Davewild 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes the article clearly isnt going to be speedied so it was a case of an admin going rogue and being disruptive, somehting I dont believe Jimbo's comments deserved SqueakBox 20:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete since an article like Norman Technologies was deleted, there is no conceivable way that this business merits an article in Wikipedia. Just look at the sources being cited -- cherryflava? Ridiculous. --Learndraft 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)user has made 6 edits in total, 4 today and 2 a week ago, SqueakBox 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Note we do have citations from things like the Financial Mail. Hut 8.5 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article seems considerably mopre notable than Norman techm=nologies and I am baffled why anyone would think otherwise, SqueakBox 21:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per the above delete comments. If those are the only sources can be found, it is most certainly not notable. * Aillema 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not necessarily because it was written by Jimbo, but because it was written by An Established Editor Who Can Be Presumed To Understand What Notability Means, and who has stated that more content would be forthcoming. ElinorD (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Judging purely by highly limited google hits, there may not be. And Cherryflava as a source? Come off it. Moreschi ^Talk 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As I see noted above, the Youth Radio piece was aired on "Marketplace" [4] in February 2006, a show that is broadcast on my local National Public Radio station and many other radio stations across the U.S. A place like that receives international coverage is unquestionably notable. --Aude (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is questionable, hence the AfD. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Sources as presented seem to clear the notability bar, but more would be appreciated. JavaTenor 21:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are a number of sources cited, which provides objective evidence of notability. A peruse through the ghits shows that the place certainly is well known and written about.[5]. It seems clearly notable to me. --Malcolmxl5 21:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Mzoli's Meats is a restaurant that is no different than the McDonald's down the street. Having someone supposedly famous eat there does not make it notable. Assuming that the place has been in the press does not make it notable. Performing original research and making the assumption that the place is well-known (I've certainly never heard of it) does not make it notable. Having a nice experience at said restaurant does not make it notable. This is simply a case of Wikipedia's own founder abusing his own site, attacking others, and setting a bad example, in order to gain publicity for friends of his. There has been way too much of that going on since the beginning. Pilotguy 21:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment and we have an article for McDonald's which includes the one down the street from you along with all the others), SqueakBox 21:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Regarding that the place has been in the press does not make it notable, please explain a bit, particularly given this sentence from WP:N - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't a travel guide, most of the sources are blogs. MartinMcCann 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - what's the commotion about? All those voting "Keep", do one of two things pronto. Bring some reliable sources to the table or put up an {underconstruction}} tag and breathe easy for a while. All those voting "delete", just take the article off your watchlists for a week or ten days. If it hasnt changed significantly after you come back, get someone to speedy it. And for all those pleading with people to AGF with the author simply because the author is of 'long standing' - since when has it become mandatory for people to look into the edit history before they voice their opinion about the article. I thought we judge an article on its own merits.. not the author's. right? and all those who changed your views(one way or the other) after seeing the edit history, please put your hands up. thanks. and oh, btw.. who is Jimbo Wales, do we know him? :D Sarvagnya 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. The mere fact that an article is not presently sourced is no reason to delete it. It is a reason to improve it. I strongly suspect that Jimbo created this article because it was evident to him that the subject was sufficently notable for Wikipedia. (Here beginneth the rant.) The Wikipedia that Jimbo originally created takes short stubs like the one he created and turns them into articles; stubs should only be deleted when there is no reasonable hope that they will ever cease to be stubs. Unfortunately, in the past few years Wikipedia has changed; it now takes short stubs and throws them in the trash can, and excoriates those who have the temerity to create them. This stub is being saved only because it was created by Jimbo; Pownce was only saved because Andrew Lih blogged about it (and even then the project that resulted from that was today nominated for deletion, presumably as backlash for this AfD). Most other stubs about perfectly notable topics will not be saved, not because they shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, but because Wikipedia's community has become so rushed, so immediatist, that it is not willing to allow embryonic articles even a tiny modicum of time to incubate, to become real articles. If Wikipedia had been run in 2003 the way it is today, it would be lucky to have 10,000 articles. Now, I am not saying that Wikipedia should keep every stub. Some stubs have no hope, or at least no reasonable hope, of ever coming out of the incubator. And there are obviously scaling issues to be dealt with. But, that said, it is abjectly silly to require that the initial creator of an article on a topic provide a fully-fledged article. Jimbo wrote what he knew about the subject, and put it on the wiki in the hopes that soon, someone who knew more would expand upon it. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And yet there are so many people here who do not want it to work that way. To all of you: Please leave, and let the rest of us write an encyclopedia. (Here endeth the rant.) Kelly Martin (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2007 (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.