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. None of the "keep" arguments present any policy-based arguments. They cite "in-depth" sources, but fail to give any examples. Therefore "delete" is the only rational choice. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Flore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable restaurant - it's a local place that's mostly covered in local blogs and secondary papers. As I'm removing promotional content from the article, it's becoming clear that there's not enough to justify this place actually having an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The restaurant has only local coverage, which fails WP:SIGCOV and thus WP:GNG. I found a mention in a guidebook and another, but gSearches more often turn up the more well known Paris restaurant with the same name, such as this guidebook reference. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This SF institution is well-beloved and the article has been targeted for content and source deletion. Plenty of reliable sources exist to make this a good or even great article. [1] The latest stable version before being targeted exemplifies its local popularity and it's the only SF restaurant allowed to carry marijuana and one of it's owners is a renowned entertainment activist and former commissioner. Pi has variously called that wards spam and other things but it's noteworthy this place gets local awards yearly. Shame on knifing the article and not finding a way to improve it instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:3164:6740:418C:B4A6 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thirty-plus sources exist and more can be used, one recently was just published a month ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:3164:6740:418C:B4A6 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• ’’’keep’’’ Sources abound for a decent article despite the current chopped down version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:76 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• SPA Comments and Unsure - there are 2 SPAs and one near SPA above, though their comments aren't directly evident as incorrect (flawless knowledge of procedures etc). My own $0.02 after dodging the sources that caused my anti-viral to flare up suggests a good possibility that notability is satisfied. It comes down to a reliable sources dispute on the papers I would say, which I'm not confident enough on, either way, to make a specific !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage appears to be the routine local coverage expected for just about any restaurant. Nothing significant or in-depth. MB 02:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the reasons stated above. Sourcing from reliable news outlets cover this venue as much as any other. You would expect local awards but they also have other in-depth sources. This used to be a reasonable article, I'm afraid the sliced one is paltry but a good one is do-able. 2601:645:8102:CC63:8D1D:5B42:FF3C:4349 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable with local coverage only. Lots of SPA keeps says it all Lyndaship (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The restaurant in the article has only local coverage, which means it fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG. The article is a fluff piece that has had it's promotional content mostly cut out, but the article does little more then let readers know this local eatery exists and implicitly wants readers to check it out if they are in town. A huge number of restaurants go through ownership changes or acquire liquor licenses as well, which is what most of the article is about. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2018 (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.