53rd and 6th – With opinion split between recreating and relisting, I'm going to go without a relist as we should give Valoem time to get the article in order before discussing agin. Further relist at editorial discretion. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
53rd and 6th (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This article passes Wikipedia's notability tests without question. The Halal Guys has over 4000 reviews on Yelp with 4 and a half stars. The article has been covered extensively in the New York Times, [1], [2], Food & Wine magazine, Huffington Post [3], Serious Eats [4], New York Street Food [5], [6]. Citations on the page itself show that the article is not an advertisement and the premise under which the article was nominated show inherited bias suggesting that the stand is not notability because it is a cart. The user who nominated this article User:ScottyBerg is a confirmed sockpuppet whose has been indefinitely banned. Please restore article so I can further edit and improve it. I would appreciate input from editors living in New York City. Extensive coverage pushes the notability of this cart above others such as Grease Trucks which have also passed notability and AfD. Valoem ^talk 15:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Please restore article for discussion. Thank you ! Valoem ^talk 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] I went ahead and removed cruft, weasel words, and added citation. Valoem ^talk 23:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Relist I must admit that I know this cart, but on the other hand I've never eaten its food -- the lines are too long, & food is one of the things i often get impatient about. . Even very informal food establishments of this sort can be notable, and I think a more detailed discussion would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Relist - I can't reconcile the discussion and the article at all. Something seems fishy or borked. Delete arguments seem to be at odds with facts (e.g., describe the sources as all unreliable blogs, when they include the New York Times, New York Magazine, etc). But the headcount is very strong. Bizarre. Wily D Restore - I agree with the preceding editors that the discussion was closed properly, but the sources at least arguably support an article. Considering the challenged deletion is from 2011, I don't really see the point in another deletion discussion, and would instead simply return the article to mainspace for further cleanup. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Allow new article. From a strict procedural standpoint, I endorse the closure of the AfD. However, it looks like the proposed text of the article fixes the concerns at the AfD. Accordingly a new article should be allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation - One of the two WP:GNG articles is Islamic Business & Finance. There other article with one to three sentences about them. Put that together and that may amount to no consensus. This' notes "original 53rd and Sixth cart, now known as Halal Guys, was the winner at last year's Street-Meat-Palooza." The New York cart is known in Hawaii.[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3182664041.html Also, "One of the most popular food carts in Manhattan, Famous Halal Guys."[7] Also, they have trademarks on Halal Guys,[8][9] so the article name probably should be Halal Guys, not 53rd and Sixth cart. -- Jreferee (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Restore Rather than review the closing of the AfD, it is sufficient to note that no participant shows any research. So at best the AfD carries no weight for the request here. Unscintillating (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and Restore, in case there was an confused of my stance on the article. The original AfD closure was questionable at best. Certain opinions hinge upon "cart not notable" and disregarded sources provided. It looks like a consensus has been made, is it possible to speed up the process so I can move the article and its talk page to The Halal Guys and create appropriate redirects. Valoem ^talk 15:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment Just for simplicity's sake I am against a delete followed by recreation, because I would prefer the full article and talk page history intact. It would make things simpler for the page move and for me as an editor as well. Thanks! Valoem ^talk 15:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment As requested I also restored the talk page for the purpose of the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] No criticism of the closer, it was a fair close of the discussion as it stood, but relist per the sources put forward in the nomination. If DGG would make the effort to try the food and comment on whether the stand and its food is special, or whether any stand at that location would be as well subscribed, that would be highly appreciated. If restored, I recommend consideration of a better title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] I plan on moving all pages to appropriate pages and create redirects once discussion is closed. Valoem ^talk 16:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

53rd and 6th – With opinion split between recreating and relisting, I'm going to go without a relist as we should give Valoem time to get the article in order before discussing agin. Further relist at editorial discretion. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article passes Wikipedia's notability tests without question. The Halal Guys has over 4000 reviews on Yelp with 4 and a half stars. The article has been covered extensively in the New York Times, [1], [2], Food & Wine magazine, Huffington Post [3], Serious Eats [4], New York Street Food [5], [6]. Citations on the page itself show that the article is not an advertisement and the premise under which the article was nominated show inherited bias suggesting that the stand is not notability because it is a cart. The user who nominated this article User:ScottyBerg is a confirmed sockpuppet whose has been indefinitely banned. Please restore article so I can further edit and improve it. I would appreciate input from editors living in New York City. Extensive coverage pushes the notability of this cart above others such as Grease Trucks which have also passed notability and AfD. Valoem ^talk 15:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore article for discussion. Thank you ! Valoem ^talk 15:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed cruft, weasel words, and added citation. Valoem ^talk 23:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist I must admit that I know this cart, but on the other hand I've never eaten its food -- the lines are too long, & food is one of the things i often get impatient about. . Even very informal food establishments of this sort can be notable, and I think a more detailed discussion would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I can't reconcile the discussion and the article at all. Something seems fishy or borked. Delete arguments seem to be at odds with facts (e.g., describe the sources as all unreliable blogs, when they include the New York Times, New York Magazine, etc). But the headcount is very strong. Bizarre. Wily D
Restore - I agree with the preceding editors that the discussion was closed properly, but the sources at least arguably support an article. Considering the challenged deletion is from 2011, I don't really see the point in another deletion discussion, and would instead simply return the article to mainspace for further cleanup. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow new article. From a strict procedural standpoint, I endorse the closure of the AfD. However, it looks like the proposed text of the article fixes the concerns at the AfD. Accordingly a new article should be allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - One of the two WP:GNG articles is Islamic Business & Finance. There other article with one to three sentences about them. Put that together and that may amount to no consensus. This' notes "original 53rd and Sixth cart, now known as Halal Guys, was the winner at last year's Street-Meat-Palooza." The New York cart is known in Hawaii.[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3182664041.html Also, "One of the most popular food carts in Manhattan, Famous Halal Guys."[7] Also, they have trademarks on Halal Guys,[8][9] so the article name probably should be Halal Guys, not 53rd and Sixth cart. -- Jreferee (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Rather than review the closing of the AfD, it is sufficient to note that no participant shows any research. So at best the AfD carries no weight for the request here. Unscintillating (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Restore, in case there was an confused of my stance on the article. The original AfD closure was questionable at best. Certain opinions hinge upon "cart not notable" and disregarded sources provided. It looks like a consensus has been made, is it possible to speed up the process so I can move the article and its talk page to The Halal Guys and create appropriate redirects. Valoem ^talk 15:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for simplicity's sake I am against a delete followed by recreation, because I would prefer the full article and talk page history intact. It would make things simpler for the page move and for me as an editor as well. Thanks! Valoem ^talk 15:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As requested I also restored the talk page for the purpose of the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No criticism of the closer, it was a fair close of the discussion as it stood, but relist per the sources put forward in the nomination.
If DGG would make the effort to try the food and comment on whether the stand and its food is special, or whether any stand at that location would be as well subscribed, that would be highly appreciated.

If restored, I recommend consideration of a better title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on moving all pages to appropriate pages and create redirects once discussion is closed. Valoem ^talk 16:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.