Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Time Machine

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 deleted and redirected to Jim's Restaurants; the main article carries all pertinent information. (aeropagitica) 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Time Machine

Does not meet notablility per WP:CORP. -Nv8200p talk 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spiral Diner, Hulk Hogan's Pastamania, and Medieval Times. Jo e I 01:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... and are those links above restaurants that were saved from AfD? --Ling.Nut 02:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are all themed resturants, and with the exception of medieval times, have only one, where time machine has two, and the hulk hogans one is gone. Jo e I 02:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, then. Please forgive me. You are listing three other restaurants which should be deleted, and citing them as a reason to keep a fourth? I'm seriously asking; not being sarcastic or facetious. --Ling.Nut 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just listing others in the same field to show established relations on wikipedia, if those to should be deleted, that's up to you. But if not, then neither should this one.Jo e I 03:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna start a long discussion, but I totally do not buy into that method of argument. The number of mom 'n pop stores and corner restaurants (and high schools and high school chess clubs and ...) in Wikipedia is daunting. It would be trivially super-easy to grab three and use them in the way that you are doing, whilst completely ignoring the who-knows-how-many that have been deleted. Invalid argument. I'm gonna go hang out where the notability discussions are for a while, and see who does what. But I've already voted here; have no desire to argue. --Ling.Nut 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops accidentally mangled joe's post. fixed. --Ling.Nut 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops again, I said I was done, but the full scope of that recursive argument just struck me. One would need to delete *every* single corner Chinese restaurant in Wikipedia to counter that argument -- which is of course impossible, since new corner Chinese restauraunts are being added faster than a thousand monkeys can type. Argument is recursive. Argument relies on inertia rather than principle. I cannot accept the corner Chhinese restaurant argument. Sorry. --Ling.Nut 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not some cornor chinese resturant. Those do not have 2(3) operations, are not owned by a larger franching resturant(usually) and do not get people driving 100 miles or more to eat at. And i'm sure sure the little chinese don't dress up as GI Joe or Shaggy or have an actual running 1930's car as a salad bar. Try comparing it to maybe one of Emerill's resturants(without his cooking of course). There's an atmosphere reputation people pay to be part of. Jo e I 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Joe.. hey .. please.. I was firmly rejecting your method of argument but not rejecting the restaurant by comparing it to a corner Chinese restaurant. You see, you made a far more valid type of argument just then, when you discussed why the restaurant was, in your opinion, notable. In the second argument, you appealed to facts, stating that people drive 100 miles to eat there etc. I personally -- and this is just me -- wouldn't agree that those facts prove notability. But I do agree that it is 'definitely a valid means of making an argument. Your first argument -- the "corner Chinese restaurant argument" was invalid through and through, and unacceptable as such. Your second argument stands on its own merits. If people are persuaded by it, then it will win the day.

Please let me know if I am making sense. I am not attacking the restaurant you support. I was rejecting your method of framing your argument... does that make sense? Thanks --Ling.Nut 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jim's Restaurants and add a section for this particular franchise in it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the outlet's mentioned. There was also a very famous outlet in Austin, Texas, which burned down under somewhat suspicious circumstances. We can certainly expand this article with interesting and informative history about the properties.

Johntex\^talk 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- There was nothing very famous about the Austin outlet that I know of other then it was a snazzy novelty that everyone liked to try out. -Nv8200p talk 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing is convincing of meeting notability. --Arbusto 03:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim's Restaurants. The parent company Frontier Enterprises and its "Jim's" chain, do appear to be notable. As it stands, the Jim's page does have coverage of the parent company. If I had my way, I'd probably move the Jim's Restaurants page to Frontier Enterprises with redirects from Jim's and MTM. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 04:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim's Restaurants. TJ Spyke 05:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The chain is already mentioned in the main article, so there is nothing worth merging. Yes, we have lots of articles that should be deleted -- that is no reason to keep more. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think there is something worth merging, in that the restaurants are interesting enough that the descriptions in the article should be complete enough that somebody could know what they are. FrozenPurpleCube 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not assert notability. JIP | Talk 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Eusebeus 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unremarkable restaurant with 1 or 2 locations and neither an assertion of notability nor sources showing any wide public interest or awareness in the media, etc. --MCB 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim's Restaurants. There's no reason to outright delete this information since it can be used to improve the Jim's Restaurants article. - Lex 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (forgot this part)[reply]
restaurant-cruft. --Anomo 23:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough in its own right and is sufficently covered in the main article. BlueValour 02:51, 6 October 2006 (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.