Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tam Chai Yunnan rice noodles

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tam Chai Yunnan rice noodles

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

Non-notable restaurant chain. Crowd sourced references with no other reliable sources found. Borderline promotion page Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As present, unreferenced, and thus clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be transliterated more commonly as Tam jai (see here for example). Given the number of locations and the writeups I was able to find I think it's notable. If it were in NYC I don't think there would be any question and I think there are adequate sources even in English to support notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRice (your example) is not a reliable source, neither are other crowd sourced restaurant review websites. Hong Kong is not NYC, the former has maybe a thousand noodle shops just like these, and the vast majority are not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a lack of verifiability and no notability is established; there needs to be significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources, but it is not. --Cold Season (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2014 (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.