Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiki bar (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiki bar

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

This article is entirely original research, and none of the sources opine on the subject of tiki bars themselves. Which Hazel? (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not so, there are two sources in the External links section already that explicitly discuss them as "tiki bars": Wired and the Food Republic blog. And a Google search reveals more, even Popular Mechanics is telling folks how to build their own "Tiki bar", while Toronto's weekly Now is telling us that TIKI BAR MANIA HEATS UP IN TORONTO. This is a notable and distinct style of drinking establishment that meets WP:GNG, and this main article for the Category:Tiki bars needs to be improved, not deleted. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable style of commercial or home bar. Lots of results at Google Book search describe them as a 20th century craze: [1], [2], [3], [4] , [5] ,[6]. Edison (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable example of cultural history. I've converted two of the dead link references to inline, webarchived cites and I've added some more references throughout. As Edison notes, there is a wealth of additional reference information to support notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2015 (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.