Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly

: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The result was nomination withdrawn and no !votes for delete. (NAC) Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

=[[Eataly]]=

:{{la|Eataly}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Eataly}})

No more indication of Notability beyond it opening a month ago failing WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. Well, if Michael Bloomberg went out of his way to mention it favorably, then that counts for something, too. 50,000 square feet is also pretty big. I don't think this article is doing any harm to Wikipedia, either. It's in need of improvement, of course. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • keep - I added some addition more recent sources and reviews - it has only been open a month has been gaining considerable coverage and praise. There are many more sources that can be added, but wikipedia is not a one man job! Tduk (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This article about a quite unusual type of business now has a good assortment of reliable sources showing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

:* A Month Old Business is Encyclopedic with only sources that mention it opening? forgive me if i think that bar is too low. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The Bloomberg story has 13 photos and goes on for about 17 paragraphs. The New York Magazine story is also quite detailed. Both emphasize unusual aspects of this business. These are far more than routine new business announcements, Resident Anthropologist. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as Eataly is the subject of significant, substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Article could use expansion and better reference formattting, but those are matters for tagging, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Super Duper Strong Keep per Cullen328 and Dravecky. The article could be improved, but the subject is sufficiently notable to retain.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

::I am going to expand the article some -- Eataly in New York is a spinoff of the original Eataly in Turin (See Eataly on Italian wikipedia [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eataly]) which has also received massive coverage.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Jeebus, there are so many articles about Eataly out there I am dumbfounded. It really is a chain, though NY branch had additional partners. The Atlantic even called Eataly "the Supermarket of the Future" in 2007[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-supermarket-of-the-future/5787/]. Changing my !vote to Super-duper Strong Keep.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep if anyone wants to improve on the article, focus on the business angle -- what it says about high-end retailing, branding and the brilliance of their rollout (I received an email from a food-obsessed and rich Indonesian friend that told me he was planning a trip to new york to visit this dump). I suspect it will all go belly up in a few years, and be looked at in business school classes, but i digress.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

::Some of the cites I have added would allow for the type of expansion you suggest. It sounds like the next step up from Dean & Deluca, which seems to have hung on ok.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:01, 20 October 2010 (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.