Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loving Hut

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loving Hut

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Loving Hut (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)

Does not appear notable as an entity/organization. Article uses primary sources (lovinghut.com) and reviews of individual restaurants using the same name. Lead paragraph uses phrases "restaurant group", "independent", "followers", "Supreme Master". The lovinghut.com/about page writes "Each Loving Hut is individually owned, with the autonomy to choose its own menu." It doesn't appear to be a corporation with branches, nor a franchise relationship and there is nothing on lovinghut.com to indicate it holds any business relationship with individual restaurants. It sounds more like a cult. I'm not sure what it is, but it doesn't appear that the "Supreme Master's" organization is notable. Normal Op (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The statement reviews of individual restaurants using the same name does not stand up to scrutiny. Broadcast of a founder's daily news and positive news is not a signature activity of a cult; cults take away your personal freedom and your ability to make your own decisions. It is clear, pursuing this article and reviews, that (franchise)(connected) loving huts are free to set their own menu yet use an international logo to identify them.    Whiteguru (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even the more cursory search returns plenty of sources. Washington Post, Vice, News.com.au, Phoenix New Times, New York Post (meh), Yahoo, lots of local coverage like Dayton Daily News, Gwinnett Daily Post, Naples Daily News... and I'm only through the first few pages of Google hits. It's a franchise apparently based more on central ideas/beliefs/brands than on menu items, but it's a franchise nonetheless (they aren't separate restaurants that happen to have the same name). It's an obvious keep. And yeah, it needs to be rewritten especially considering about half of the sources I just linked talk about it being a "cult". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "half of the sources I just linked talk about it being a cult", and you seem surprised. Like I wrote on the article's talk page, you cannot separate the subject of Loving Hut from Ching Hai, therefore any content is more appropriately placed in the Ching Hai article with a redirect from "Loving Hut" to Ching Hai. More quotes from your new collection: "All Loving Hut owners are members of Hai's Association", and "the affection the owners have for Ching Hai", and "Local Loving Hut owner Vincent Nguyen met Ching Hai in 1989 and has been a student of her teachings ever since," and "Loving Hut operates more like a homeowners association than a traditional franchise. There is no standard operating manual and no franchise fee, though the logo and the color scheme is the same in each location." Perhaps you've eaten at a local Loving Hut vegan restaurant and like the food; I have spent quite a bit of time reading about Ching Hai, her teachings, her other businesses, and other's viewpoints about it all. Those articles are representative. Normal Op (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • and you seem surprised - no, just observing that it's not in the article. you cannot separate the subject of Loving Hut from Ching Hai. I'll give it a go: one is a chain of restaurants and the other is a person. :P Plenty of sources are about the restaurants. It's possible a merge makes sense, but it's not clear to me at this point. If you think it should be merged, maybe withdraw this and start a merge discussion? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cult or not, it has been sufficiently covered by third party sources, as Rhododendrites has shown. ~★ nmaia d 04:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I understand the nominator's point about the two being closely connected, in the way that a founder can be inseparable from the business or organization that they founded, but as Rhododendrites says, one is a business and the other is a person. If you believe that this article does not fully express the connection between them, and there are reliable sources that cover that connection, then you can edit this article to make that clear. It doesn't need to be deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ching Hai. I've yet to see any discussion on the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Keep !voters above refer to "plenty of sources", "lots of local coverage" and "reliable sources", but none have looked at the sources with WP:NCORP in mind. This Washington Post reference is largely based on information provided by a "Local Loving Hut" owner Vincent Nguyen with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. The listing in the Australian Veg Food Guide provides no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference from Naples Daily News discusses how one Loving Hut closed down and was replaced by a new vegan restaurant. Article contains no information about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Lonely Planet listing is a mere mention, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, this from Gwinnett Daily Post is a listing of one individual restaurant and has nothing about the actual company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I am unable to locate a single reference with Independent Content that discusses the company in detail, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. A merge wouldn't be a terrible result, but it does seem to cross the line. There are a good few hits on Google Scholar (lots, though, not in English) that could be useful for expansion. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Loving_Hut&oldid=976005068"