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The result was : nomination withdrawn. --El on ka 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coney Island Hot Dog Stand[edit]

non-notable roadside attraction, unoriginal design "Tail of the Pup" in California existed for 20 years prior with the same design. Does not meet notability guidelines for unique architecture. Contested PROD Kyaa the Catlord 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn (see below - 08:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)) - Mereda 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for full disclosure I am the article creator, and Kyaa proded this after a confrontation on Heroes (TV series) article. Article was created almost a year ago, and since then has gone under expansion with sources and a picture added. Larger and more detailed then the Tail O' the Pup artcle. There is little to no resemblence between the two buildings except the fact they are both based on hot dogs. I think the only reason Tail o' the Pup is more notable is that it's in LA and not hidden away in the mountains of Colorado. This could very well be a wiki stalking nomination. ([1] Tail O' the Pup Image to compare with Coney Island.) EnsRedShirt 15:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF and make arguments based on notability guidelines. A big hotdog is a big hotdog. Kyaa the Catlord 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page, AFD is not a place for personal fights. As for notbility it is notable for it's moves, and its history as being the first, and only, of a failed chain of big "hot dogs." Notability has also been proven with the number of stories linked from the article. EnsRedShirt 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sort of. First of all, please refrain from using wording such as "speedy keep" and "wiki stalking nomination". That implies bad faith on behalf of the nominator, when Kyaa is clearly not a bad-faith editor. This object clearly exists but the sources provided do not currently show it to be of anything other than local notability: I doubt that this passes WP:N: I also doubt that you could write a featured article on this topic, and if sufficient data is not present for that then there probably shouldn't be n independant article in this first place. Of course, if more reliable sources are provided that show this thing to be of more than local notability, then things are different. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is more reliable than a USA Today article, an article from the Rocky Mountain News, and a link to a nationally shown TV Show? (Might I add that the USA today article notes this as the largest Hot Dog in the USA?) EnsRedShirt 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability criterion says that "A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article." The USA Today "article" isn't much more than a passing mention and provides little context. Three of the other articles are, seemingly, local news stories that don't affirm encyclopedic notability. As far as the Rocky Mountain News article is concerned, that article is all about the move and provides no encyclopedic context for us to use, as indeed are quite a few of the others. Indeed, I would say that as far as we have any notability asserted the move of the object is more notable than the object itself. As far as I can see the TV programme made only passing mention of this. Furthermore, three of the articles cited are by the same person. I do not think the primary notability criterion is satisfied. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per media coverage and historic value. It's maybe not quite as notable as the Benewah Milk Bottle (listed on the National Register of Historic Places), but it's unusual enough to keep. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is an oddball, but it is very similar to the earlier Tale o the Pup in spirit, albeit not identical. The notability guidelines stress the uniqueness of design, not how interesting the object can be. If just being interesting was a primary notability guideline, we'd have articles on all the funny Paul Bunyons and such which are better suited for a website like Roadside America. [2] Moreschi discusses the media coverage better than I could above. Kyaa the Catlord 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you please point to the specific guideline language underlining "the uniqueness of design"? Could you further explain how to judge uniqueness (as these are not identical designs) in a way that is not subjective? --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done: "In a few rare cases, an individual location will also have architectural peculiarities that makes it unique and notable." The first giant hot dog, unique. Another giant hot dog, built 20 years later is not unique. Kyaa the Catlord 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This line of argument seems to be going off-track from the primary notability standards. Regardless if it is of "unique design" or not, there is now an abundant amount of published works about the subject. Just because it doesn't satisfy the single "unique design" criterion doesn't mean it doesn't pass others like WP:NOTE or WP:CORP. Deleting this becuae it's not a unique design would be like deleting Stephen Hawking because he didn't pose in Playboy. --Oakshade 07:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unique design is a key portion of WP:CORP when dealing with gimmicky restaurants like this. The primary reason this hot dog stand has a wikipedia article is due to its unusual design.... Moreschi's statements about the news articles being cited not providing encyclopedic context for this hot dog stand continue to be unaddressed, and add to the question of the stand meeting WP:NOTE. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Published works about the subject is the primary criterion of WP:CORP. Whether any editor's POV is that the design is not unique is completely irrelevent. All the references cited support the encyclopedic content in the article. Some my not think it's "encyclopedic", but WP guildlines dissagrees with that. --Oakshade 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I refer you to Moreschi's question about whether the primary notability guideline is met. Is the object notable or is the movement of the object notable? Are there multiple, non-trivial independent sources? As Moreschi showed, the answer is "no". Kyaa the Catlord 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "yes". And it's the subject that's notable. There would be no story about the move without the notable subject. That's why multiple non-trivial independent sources are written about it. --Oakshade 08:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elkman. --Djsasso 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I would be happier with more sources, but this seems sufficiently notable as an example of mimetic architecture, which served as a major customer attractor before branding and franchises became common. I don't know there's any proof the Tail O' the Pup was the first; most of the others are gone. This is notable for surviving several moves through several cities including a major tourist town.--Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please address the concerns as to why the movement of a fast food restaurant makes it notable and encyclopedic raised by Moreschi. Hundreds of other buildings are moved, why are they not notable for the same rationale? The article for Tail o the Pup claims it was built in 1946(although the claim is unsourced, but I'll AGF on the part of whoever added that date since it was prior to this AfD), which would make it the first "giant hotdog shaped" hot dog stand and this an imperfect copy. Kyaa the Catlord 23:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please restrict your opinion to this article Kyaa, not the Tail O The Pup article. This article does not claim notability by being the first of anything, it claims notability for appearance in a movie and being the subject of some media attention. If you feel that is not enough to pass notability, great, please state your case. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I'm not a fan of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, and I believe you have now brought up the Tail O' the Pup article about 3 or 4 times now, and it is not the article at issue in any way. -Markeer 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction Please review the Notability guidelines for such articles. The argument I make with the Tail O The Pup is DIRECTLY related to policy, not some twisted take on other crap exists. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 07:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is my new vote, having added four print citations to the article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung, and for having more than one non-trivial secondary source (yes, USAToday and the Rocky Mountain News are non-trivial, although obviously we would all be happier with a published book or journal article on regional landmarks). The movie use adds a little something. I don't think this is VERY notable, but it seems to clearly squeak by the guidelines. -Markeer 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The multiple published works that are primarily about this subject satsify WP:NOTE. --Oakshade 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the titles of the works listed in the article, it appears to be a stretch to state that they are "primarily about this subject". Kyaa the Catlord 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what titles (or article) you are looking at, but I'm seeing "A Dog's Tale", "I thought it would be fun to restore Dog" and "Moving Day for the Dog." --Oakshade 08:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that those are all by the same writer? Did you forget the word "independent?" (And actually read those articles, she recycled the same thing three times.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The response was to your "title" comment. There's also "Giant hot dog set for move" independent of the prolific Ms. Lawson. --Oakshade 08:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the books (to which I presume you refer) has a one or two page article/entry/section devoted exclusively to the subject. They are not passing mentions. If you are insisting that a subject must have two entire books written about it to be notable, you are stretching the guidelines to unheard of length. (I will never understand the deletionist mindset, I suppose.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomOo7565 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with around 9 reliable and independent sources, it is one of the better sourced Wikipedia articles. Edison 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate to Deletion Perhaps a move to wikitravel, since this article has improved over the past day. Kyaa the Catlord 07:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD WITHDRAWN This nom has pretty much reached SNOWBALL level. The article is MUCH improved however, so some good was done here. Kyaa the Catlord 08:51, 21 February 2007 (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.