Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 no consensus. All points considered. By my best analysis there does not seem to be a consensus here either way. Shout-out to User:DGG's improvements. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

[edit]
Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restaurant or company of no particular notability, one of thousands, written in the manner of a promotional review. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also not for advertising restaurants of limited notability. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not intended as such. -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I keep seeing people say that it's not neutral (or reads as an advertisement), but I've yet to see anyone provide any new sources to tone down the positiveness of the article, or even to attempt at rewording anything... I'll concede that perhaps it's a bit localized, but I (personally) don't have a problem with that. If there's a relevant guideline for restaurant articles, I'd be happy to revisit my position. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, can you please tell us if you read it in the edition that was printed for sale 5000 miles away, in the edition that was printed for sale in NY/NJ and mailed to you, or did you read it online? Obviously local papers with websites can be read anywhere. If it was printed specifically for international distribution that is a different story. The NY Times covers local events as well as national/internation ones. New Brunswick is part of the NY metro area, and its inclusion in that paper does not necessarily make the subject of regional importance (for the record it takes far less time to travel from Manhattan to the restaurant in question than it does to travel to places in Queens, Staten Island, and Brooklyn).Njsustain (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, yes, I read it in the internationally-published website. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Not to be argumentative, but the point I was making is that if you read it online, that doesn't make it "international." The entire web is by its nature international. The fact that you read a story which was printed specifically in the New Jersey section (i.e. for the metropolitan community) on the world wide web doesn't make it of "international" importance any more than reading about the Chipotle franchise in the Supulpa, Oklahoma weekly shopper's website while in Rome makes it of international importance. I'm not going to take a side on deletion, but do want it to be clear that inclusion of a New Jersey subject in the NY Times does not automatically make that subject of more than local importance.Njsustain (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not wishing to be argumentative either, by any stretch, but if this is a potential policy/guideline change then fine by me. This restaurant has received global coverage being publicised by one of the biggest newspapers in history. If we need to modify our policies to cater for the fact that this may not be as clear as it seems, then fine. Perhaps this is a test case for establishments claiming notability via an internationally published newspaper, and perhaps we need to discuss it in a wider forum. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears, on the face of it, to have received coverage from a number of notable secondary sources. Not quite sure how it currently fails our WP:N criterion, perhaps the nominator would be kind enough to expand on his accusation of "no particular notability" vs said policy, and if it's a promotional review, perhaps nominator could remove overt advertising or add some information to the talkpage to assist those involved. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This exact verbatim text appears to have been posted by the same user already, above. No need for duplicate spam posting. -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we have a different understanding of what SPAM is. The same response was appropriate for both posts.Griswaldo (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, Griswaldo. I am capable of reading your comments, no need to overwhelm this AFD with your repeated opinion. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was no need for you to post the exact same text in two places on this same page. You could have simply pointed another user by saying, see comment, above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This entry does not satisfy the more specific policy - WP:CORP. All coverage is local and regional, and that includes the two mentions in the New York Times appearing in the regional section there. One piece of information that was put forth towards notability in other discussions was established as inaccurate and removed by me here. What we have here is a puff piece written about a popular restaurant based on a series of local news paper and magazine reviews. There is absolutely no reason for an encyclopedia to contain content on this location.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zagat Survey rating of 24/30 is not local [1]. The New York Times feature selection in "Standouts Among the Year’s Best" is not local. -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the Zagat Survey is highly highly local, and if anything 24/30 is a very strong argument against inclusion if we are to consider it at all. This is a totally ordinary restaurant of zero encyclopedic interest. Note that New York City alone has 198 restaurants with a higher food rating. 24 is totally unremarkable. It's a local wine bar with good reviews, nothing more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So... a source that paints the subject in a positive light is a violation of NPOV (fair enough), but a source that paints the subject in a negative light is evidence that it's non-notable? Couldn't it, I dunno, be used instead to bring a more neutral stance for the article to counteract the perceived bias in the article? (ie: "Daryl's blah blah has received these awards, but Zagat disagreed saying blah blah" or something more coherent) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that high ratings in Zagat was part of the notability criteria, or a listing in a NYT regional restaurant review was either. If other people think that Wikipedia should be filled with listings for every well reviewed restaurant then so be it, but I don't. There are millions of similar restaurants around. Also please note that restaurant reviews are not part of the normal news cycle, they are part of a culture of public relations and marketing for restaurants. "Significant coverage" by local reviews is a beast of a very particular sort.Griswaldo (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (slightly weakish but still). The "Reception" section could definitely be shortened - it is that section that perhaps gives the article something of a promotional impression. However, there appears to be a reasonably solid case for notability. There are quite a few NJ regional sources (not just the local town newspaper), as well as some regional awards, mentioned in the lede. Quite a bit of coverage in NYT (in the NJ section but still, that counts as regional, and not just local, coverage). Plus the restaurant was featured in a national NBC program - a national source. I would have liked to see a bit more - e.g. some mention in regional guidebook(s), but basically there is enough here to pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful pointers. I would have gladly worked to trim down the Reception subsection, had this been politely pointed out in a specific suggestion on the talk page, however, again, AFD is not for cleanup. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To me, local reviews are not "independent" coverage for a local establishment, and while the New York Times is read nationally (even internationally), it is still a local paper for the New York area, it clearly still covers regional topics, and its coverage appeared in the Regional section (re discussion above as to NYT being available internationally - so are all websites where not blocked by nations, and pretty much any written work can be distributed internationally, the point is focus). There appears to be no significant coverage of this restaurant outside of its local area and, while the article is well written, I don't see how it has the actual notability necessary to meet with WP:N nor WP:CORP. Further, many local restaurants get a one off appearance on Food Network or NBC...ONE appearance isn't significant coverage. I have not seen any policy nor guideline that says that the "Zagat" survey is relevant nor noteworthy here. From the site, it appears to be a user-based rating system, much like ePinions, only you have to pay to see them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is Regional, which is good enough. WP:CORP distinguishes between Local and Regional coverage, this is the latter. This is a review of a New Jersey restaurant by a New York paper; "Local" would be the same city. There is no shortage of New York City restaurants for the NYTimes to cover that it would cover an unimportant one in central New Jersey. --GRuban (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be "good enough." The guideline says: "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Not it it does not say "at least one regional, national, or international source is sufficient." Good judgement still needs to be exercised to determine "notability." That the coverage is in the "New Jersey" section (which caters to the NYTs large New Jersey audience) makes it less of a big deal, in many eyes, than coverage in the national editions. At any rate, the real dispute here is whether restaurant reviews of only local (or regional if you prefer) interest are sufficient to build an encyclopedia argument with.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Strong, multiple, continuous coverage by several undisputedly reliable sources means that it passes our general notability guideline with flying colours. No sane reason exists to dismiss sources only because most of them are "regional", especially if the "region" includes millions of persons. The "delete" comments above seem to squirm into a personal interpretation of notability which isn't supported by any guideline apart perhaps for WP:CORP -in any case, alternative notability guidelines are supposed to extend GNG, not to replace it, so the requirement of CORP of sources not being local is completely moot. Reliable sources are reliable sources and significant coverage is significant coverage regardless of the audience. An academic journal on some exotic mathematics field would have probably much less audience than NYT, but nobody seriously argue to dismiss it as a RS. To pick up "local" as a proxy for "nobody cares about it" is deeply biased. --Cyclopiatalk 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I may be missing something, so I'm not saying "delete" at the moment, but I do not see any assertion of notability. If this article is kept we are really opening the floodgates: every two-bit cafe in the world will want an article because local media invariably mentions every food outlet a couple of times, and we don't keep one article because it is well written and the restaurant has good reviews, while deleting another article on a local cafe because it is not (yet) well written and has bad reviews. Then there is every other business covered by a couple of trade magazines which invariably cover all vaguely relevant organizations: is Joe's Printing notable because it is mentioned in a couple of local papers and trade mags? I'm not saying "OTHERSTUFF", I'm asking how WP:ORG applies to this restaurant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are about establishing actual notability, not assertions of notability. Notability is established by guidelines. Even for establishments in its metropolitan area, The New York Times is generally not considered the "local paper". Bongomatic 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Though, like other large metro areas, there are other local papers in the NY area, The Times is indeed considered a local paper, as well as a global paper of record, to those living within the metro area. The Times happens to have excellent local coverage as well as covering topics of global importance. The review of this restaurant happened to be part of its metro coverage, nothing more. Is there a standard which states that anything that happens to be in the NY Times, no matter the context, deserves a WP article, and if so, what other newspapers are included in this elite list, and where is the line drawn? At the Pittsburgh Press? At the San Francisco Chronicle? At the Miami Herald? And who gets to decide what is on each side or this line?Njsustain (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, including its imputation of bad faith on the part of the nominator. Full length review in New York Times (which was in the version that was nominated for deletion) alone is sufficient to establish notability. Appearing on "best" lists in large metropolitan areas and being widely reviewed rebut the claim that the NY Times coverage is too local. Furthermore, it has won state-wide awards in a state with population of nearly 9 million. Bongomatic 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The review in question focuses on the founding chef (no longer there) more than the restaurant, and suggests that said chef had some notability when the restaurant was created. One suggestion in another discussion was to merge the appropriate amount of information into the entry on the chef instead. Also, is there any indication that this review, located under the heading "DINING | NEW BRUNSWICK" was published in the national or international distribution of the New York Times? It doesn't go beyond local just because its the Times unless it is actually distributed outside the region.Griswaldo (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "state-wide awards" were readers choice awards from New Jersey Monthly with a self proclaimed maximum readership of 515,000 total readers, not 9 million. Clearly those who actually voted on this are a much smaller number than that as well. That said are you suggesting that all of the restaurants winning these NJ Monthly prizes each year, over 150 in 2007 alone are also notable and deserve entries here? Maybe we should multiply that by 50 for each state that hands out these types of awards in their monthly magazines. We're talking about over 7,500 restaurants every year that are equally notable, probably two or three times that given the fact that there are multiple state wide organizations handing out these types of prizes.Griswaldo (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the awards included Critics' Choice awards recognition as well. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are suggesting that the notability guidelines are far broader than might be desirable, you will not get disagreement from me—personally, I think they're absurdly over-inclusive and lead to many, many thousands of articles on unencyclopedic topics. But there they are, in black and white, as the only authoritative basis to opine in deletion discussions. This restaurant—and probably many far less notable (in the real world, not Wikipedia sense) ones—meets the guidelines. Bongomatic 03:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. The guidelines are possibly a bit ambiguous but they are not plainly broad. They are being interpreted broadly by some and narrowly by others. It's an odd choice to take the broad interpretation while wishing openly that guidelines were more narrow. It is certainly odd to admit that this and other restaurants do not belong in an encyclopedia but to claim being handcuffed by a guideline in a way that you can't do anything about it. To each their own I guess.Griswaldo (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the interpretation of the guidelines can only be done on the margins. The topic of this article unambiguously meets the guidelines. It's better to choose one's battles than to tilt at windmills. Bongomatic 04:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Griswaldo and AnmaFinotera. Fails notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep!!! - run by a Scientologist [2], so we've got to support Cirt's crusade by documenting their every move. Got to keep those Thetans out of our soup on theatre night. Cookiehead (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warning regarding this comment placed on talk page James (T C) 04:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Warning also placed on talk page. Also warning on this page of an extreme lack of a sense of humor coupled with a heady dose of condescension, and an inability to determine the difference between "keep" and delete". Cheers. Cookiehead (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cookiehead, your sarcastic humor is unnecessary and in fact counter-productive here. You bring to the forefront a completely valid point, and snarking about it diminishes the impact of the point. Many of us have puzzled about why an article about a completely run-of-the-mill restaurant with some good local reviews was singled out for an article. Some wondered about a conflict of interest. The fact that there is a Scientology connection explains a lot, and not in a way that is favorable to the cause of this article. Cirt writes a lot about topics connected to Scientology. That there is a connection to Scientology here is quite relevant to any thoughtful understanding of what is going on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it isn't relevant. It can be relevant for internal chit-chat about Cirt's motivations as an editor, but editor agendas/motivations have nothing to do with the appropriateness of a subject for WP. FWIW, the creation of this article may be part of an evil plan of Cirt to conquer the world, but it is nonetheless none of our business. The restaurant is notable by multiple coverage by reliable sources, and that's all what counts. If you have problems with Cirt, solve them in the proper avenues - taking down his articles is not the way to go. --Cyclopiatalk 11:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: In response to above comments, I have trimmed down the size of the Reception subsection, from [3] to [4]. It is now a bit more succinct and concise. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability and depth of coverage appear to be satisfied.Jarhed (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A new-ish restaurant getting positive reviews from local papers and Zagat does not make it notable. SQGibbon (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More - WP:CORP states "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" which seems to be the case here. Further the article reads like an advertisement and without anything notable about the restaurant means it should be deleted as per WP:CORP. SQGibbon (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:GNG as well as WP:CORP's requirement for "at least regional" coverage. I personally feel that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are too broad or too vague, and that a guideline written specifically for restaurants might be written with tighter standards, resulting in deletion of this article. But with the existing guidelines as they are, the requirements are met. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is what wikipedia will become when paid editing is allowed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Peter's comment. My initial thought is that keeping an article on this subject may be OK, but we need to gut this sucker.--Milowent • talkblp-r 07:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was no paid editing involved with writing this article. -- Cirt (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I am completely flummoxed, then.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets the main general notability guideline, does not go against any policies, so there is no reason we should not have an article. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. The subject may meet the notability guideline (barely), but the article is poor and should be rewritten completely to make an objective look at it possible. Things like "In 2007, The New York Times highlighted the restaurant in a piece, "Standouts Among the Year's Best", and gave it a rating of "excellent"" in reality mean that the regional New Jersey section of the NYTimes reviewed 42 restaurants in 2007, and mentioned the ten best of these 42 again in an article at the end of the year. The current sentence gives the impression that this is comparable to a selection of the ten best books of the year by the NYTimes, when it is just the selection of one food critic from his weekly regional restaurant visit. It may be a somewhat notable restaurant, but this is a puff piece fileld with trivia and blog sources. Fram (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Griswaldo and AnmaFinotera. Not much more than local notability. ThemFromSpace 09:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely ordinary restaurant with local reviews only. Article reads like an advertisement. Primary author apparently has a connection to the subject via his well known (anti)Scientology activism. Connection to Cirt/Scientology may help explain why it was created, but does nothing to establish notability. Apparently the founding chef, who is no longer at the restaurant, may be notable, so a merger of some of the content may be appropraite.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Local reviews" on RS are still RS coverage. "Article reads like an advertisement" and COI issues are not reason for deletion: the first can be dealt with editing and our deletion policy asks us not to delete, therefore ; the second is irrelevant (what is important is the subject, not the reasons behind article creation). --Cyclopiatalk 11:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales, as primary author, I do not have a connection to the restaurant. Yes, I have written WP:FA and WP:GA content on the topic of Scientology, and found out about the topic regarding one of the founders of the restaurant from a blog of Mark Rathbun, but that is the extent of it. I have no conflict of interest relating to the restaurant or its founders. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daryl Sorrentini is a Scientologist who has been reported in the blogosphere to have left the Church of Scientology. She is now, along with her daughter and son-in-law (actress Jamie Sorrentini and Italian singer Tiziano Lugli), friends with dissident Scientologists like Marc Headley, Mark Rathbun and Amy Scobee. All of these people are highly critical of David Miscavige, although they are not necessarily critical of Scientology as taught by L. Ron Hubbard. Would it be fair to say that you morally support their cause, and that this has something to do with your having written the article, as well as the article on Jamie Sorrentini? --JN466 17:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already stated, above, it was through the blog of Mark Rathbun that I initially became aware of the topic. However, the characterization by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is not a fair or accurate assessment, neither is it related to the discussion of notability of this article page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my characterisation so much as that of a named contributor on a cirtics' website. To use his words, he stated your position, as maintained in private correspondence with him, is that you are "fervently (almost to the point of panic) opposed to the Church of Scientology". He stated that you "monitor people and organizations who have ever been 'threatened' by the CoS", and that you believe you are "'assisting' or 'rewarding' those victimized people by giving them the 'gift' of coverage in Wikipedia." I just wondered if that was true. I can let you have the URL where the claim was made, if you like. --JN466 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, No one is arguing that have not easily been one of top contributors, but just becuase we have sources on a topic does not mean we should write about a topic. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Jayen466 (talk · contribs), your strenuous attempts at ad hominem and poisoning the well are noted. -- Cirt (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above leaves two possible interpretations: either the off-site poster at WR is lying, or you are less than honest in your dealings with the community. I note that we had a very similar situation recently with another article of yours on a non-notable subject, Kenneth Dickson. This too was strikingly promotional in its tone, was written in the run-up to a local election in which Dickson took part, and it too had a Scientology connection. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Dickson_(2nd_nomination), [5]. I note that then, too, you attempted to initiate admin and noticeboard action against the editors who criticised the Kenneth Dickson article as a blatant puff piece, just as you did here in the case of Njsustain. You are a talented writer and editor, but writing puff pieces in support of the cause of the Scientology dissidents does not reflect well on you, nor does the fact that you consistently try to bring admin sanctions down on the heads of those who call you out on it. --JN466 17:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect assessment: this article is not a "puff piece", see for example the Keep comment by Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), here [6]. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt's alleged bias here is not relevant to the article or its notability. We have no "editor's internal motivations" test at Wikipedia - COI comes close, but a vast majority of work is done by people interested in a topic or a related topic, even if it's tangental.
If you feel that there's a systematic problem that violates policy in some way then a user RFC would be appropriate, but the discussion here is not appropriate for an AFD, where none of the alleged issues have surfaced in the article in any way that anyone is citing.
Please don't use this as a forum to bash on Cirt - this is about the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt introduced this aspect by stating to Jimbo, above, unasked, that s/he had no conflict of interest with regard to the restaurant and its owners. This may or may not have been economical with the truth, but I agree that continuing this discussion here can serve no further purpose. --JN466 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break #1

[edit]
  • Delete - explicitly without prejudice for or against any editor involved in the article or this AfD. However well the article may be written and sourced, the problem is the subject isn't notable. Zagat and, indeed, any number of food column reviews do not confer or show notability. That is, after all, what they do, so those sources are not really independent of the subject. There's a definite symbiosis there. It's almost like saying an academic is notable because he publishes scholarly papers. We draw the line there - we say that academics must be recognized as having contributed something significant to their field as one of the criteria to establish notability. Simply publishing is not enough; presenting papers at conferences doesn't do it, and even the combination of the two isn't enough. If and when this restaurant is shown to be notable - longevity, notability in the restaurant and/or wine worlds, notability of one or more of its owners, something that is more than simply maintaining its existence - that would be a different story.  Frank  |  talk  12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A restaurant doesn't publish anything: other people review it. An academic is not relevant because he publishes, but is relevant if he gets secondary sources coverage. That's what we are discussing here. I don't understand the "symbiosis" argument -in what respect aren't reviews by RS considered not independent? --Cyclopiatalk 13:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary coverage for a restaurant would be a piece which is written about the restaurant outside of a review of it. A review of a restaurant merely indicates that it exists, not that it is notable. Regarding academics, publishing a paper means the academic exists, not that he is notable. When other academics start referring to one as a recognized authority, that's a different story. Same with a restaurant.  Frank  |  talk  13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You again seem to imply that reviews are somehow primary sources, like if restaurants write reviews themselves. That's obviously nonsensical. Your argument would hold if we were talking of press releases and advertisements, but a review means that someone else took note and wrote about the restaurant, so it is secondary sources coverage no doubt. --Cyclopiatalk 15:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there's a symbiosis there. Restaurant reviewers exist (or at least are employed) simply to review restaurants. The presence of one or more reviews of a restaurant does not confer or indicate notability. Such reviews merely confirm the existence of the establishment. From where I sit, it appears you have characterized my portion of this discussion in your own way and then cast stones at it...then you've said my "...argument would hold if..." but you don't appear to be actually reading what I've written. Your inference may not match my actual implication; that doesn't make what I'm saying "obviously nonsensical".  Frank  |  talk  17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, apologies if it seemed that I misrepresented your arguments -I probably simply have misunderstood them. But anyway, I still can't get it:
  • Restaurant reviewers exist (or at least are employed) simply to review restaurants.: Yes. So what? Biographers exist simply to write biographies. Journalists exist to write news articles. Does this mean that biographies or news articles are not, usually, secondary, reliable sources? Really, what's the point?
The point is that a restaurant is a limited thing with a limited scope that applies mostly locally and can be consumed (if you'll pardon the pun) multiple times. A book or a news article is not the same thing, and so biographers and journalists are not the same thing. Even book reviewers are not the same thing; books often sell into the millions of copies. My point is that there is a highly symbiotic relationship between restaurants and their reviewers; it's a very closed society - so much so that objectivity is less than in other pursuits.
  • The presence of one or more reviews of a restaurant does not confer or indicate notability.: And why? Record reviews and book reviews usually confer notability. Why restaurant reviews do not?
Again, music and book reviews are different; they are mass-market items (generally) while restaurants are not. If a restaurant is to be thought of as notable, it must be mentioned outside the routine arena of a straight restaurant review. Take Tavern on the Green or Sardi's for example. These are storied establishments that are notable for more than just being restaurants, and indeed their food isn't always rated the best. But they are still notable. Besides - I hope nobody is suggesting that every album or book that's ever been reviewed is automatically notable. I certainly disagree with that notion.
  • Such reviews merely confirm the existence of the establishment.: No. This would be right if reviews were primary sources, but they are not. They are secondary sources coverage. So they establish notability. Read WP:GNG. --Cyclopiatalk 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; see my point above. The symbiotic nature of the relationship between restaurants and reviewers makes this sketchy. But I would say this: if the restaurant is otherwise notable, it's perfectly appropriate to put in additional material from reliable sources - even if they are reviews. I'm just saying that having only reviews isn't enough.  Frank  |  talk  19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand better your argument. You have a good point, but it seems to me more of a NPOV issue than a notability one -that is, it may be biased coverage, but it is still independent third party coverage (i.e. they are not primary sources). --Cyclopiatalk 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess what I'm saying is that if the only coverage we can find smacks of POV...that's not enough. Surely many of our articles regarding truly famous people include sources that are NPOV...but they aren't the only or even a majority of the sources. And - if the only coverage is POV coverage, that kind of negates the idea that the subject is independently notable. If a subject is truly notable, it shouldn't be a problem to find truly independent coverage that demonstrates that. The comment below regarding traffic reports and roads seems apt as well.  Frank  |  talk  01:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of notable subjects where it is very easy to find RS coverage but very hard to find NPOV coverage. Good luck finding unanimously considered NPOV sources on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example (Although one could say that in that case you find POV sources from both sides). --Cyclopiatalk 13:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very fair point. My counter to it is that in such cases, the controversy itself is quite likely notable. If anyone cared enough about this restaurant to generate significant POV content as both "love it" and "hate it" - that would be notable, in my opinion.  Frank  |  talk  14:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The following opinions expressed have no basis in the guidelines:
    • Whpq: "What I see is a local restaurant getting local reviews."
    WP:CORP distinguishes between "local" and "regional". NYT coverage (and statewide coverage) is regional, not local.
    • Griswaldo: "coverage must extend beyond significant local and incidental regional coverage."
    CORP states that "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary" (i.e., "incidental" regional coverage is sufficient--in this case, of course, there multiple regional sources).
    • SQGibbon (quoting CORP):"'attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability' which seems to be the case here."
    As above, CORP distinguishes between local and regional.
    • Frank:"any number of food column reviews do not confer or show notability. That is, after all, what they do, so those sources are not really independent of the subject."
    While there is no topic specific guideline for restaurants, this logic is opposite the analog articulated in both WP:NB and WP:NF, each of which infers notability from reviews by professional reviewers.
Bongomatic 13:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bongo, we are not any less correct than you are since the policy you quote only lays out the bare minimum needed to establish notability - "at least one regional, national ...". It does not, anywhere, state that only meeting this bare minimum requirement always establishes notability. Like I said to you elsewhere there are competing interpretations here of a policy that is much more ambiguous than what you are claiming. In my view the policy could be strengthened, but until it is my interpretation remains much more narrow than yours, and for good reason. Wiki-lawyering over the policy text is less important here than keeping non-encyclopedic puffery out of the encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CORP distinguishes between local and regional, but doesn't indicate what "regional" is supposed to mean, whether one US state qualifies or whether it should be someyhing larger, e.g. the Midwest, New England, ... List of regions of the United States indicates that "regional" may range from only four in the whole of the USA, to sub-county level regions. The guideline definitely needs to be rewritten to clarify or eliminate this (apart from the fact that a lot of people seem to feel that the guideline is not suited for restaurants and the like). It is impossible to judge whether those opinions have, as you say, no basis in the guidelines, or accurately reflect them. Fram (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These reviews were written for readers in the local area. There is nothing in the reviews content-wise or where they were published, to indicate that people from outside the local area should take notice. The restaurant is not being held up as one deserving state-wide, national, or international recognition. It's just another of any number of insignificant local restaurants only of interest to the people who live nearby. SQGibbon (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I concur. In response to Bongo's statement, I don't see that these local/regional restaurant reviews as making a restaurant notable;it just makes it be the current dining hotness in the New York area. Has this restaurant received attention from further afield? For example, something like a Michelin Star or a James Beard award would demonstrate that the restaurant has been noted, as opposed to reviewed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt closed an AfD discussion as delete where both votes were to delete because of a lack of coverage in secondary sources on a closed restaurant. What relevance does that have here? Freakshownerd (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the closure of an AfD debate is a representation of the WP:CONSENSUS of the discussion at hand. In an ideal world, Cirt's own opinion of that article would not have entered into the decision to close the AfD. The degree to which that is true is possibly debatable but actually beside the point; please read WP:OSE for details. Basically, one has nothing to do with the other.  Frank  |  talk  19:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm voting "delete" here and this is an article largely written by Cirt, I wanted to weigh in and agree strongly with Freakshownerd and Frank: admins who are closing AfDs should work really hard to set aside their own view of the deletion debate and just close based on the consensus that has emerged. I'm very confident that Cirt would do that. He's a great editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by precedent Delete (My !vote was sarcasm so I am changing it before this closes) For over a year I have watched notability arguments about products and companies. The clear precedent in software, children's toys and other products is that any two reviews of any length by any RS establish notability. Therefore, every taco truck, hot dog cart, bar, and non-franchised coffee shop will also easily be notable. Anyone who wants to delete these things hasn't been paying attention to the direction notability has taken in the last year and it is too late now. Miami33139 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you tell us how you (don't) really feel.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The establishment has no notability within the U.S. restaurant industry, nor does it appear to be noteworthy as a New Jersey attraction. Local restaurants inevitably get reviewed by local newspapers, and Zagat is a Wiki-style publication where anyone can offer opinions. Even worse, the article looks and smells like an advertisement. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it may be overwhelming positive because there is nothing negative to say? appears to be notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Local reviews of a restaurant aren't enough, as these are often promotionally tinged. The type of coverage available to us is of a completely different standard with restaurants like Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, which receive serious (not just promotional) coverage that goes way beyond local media. [7] It is somehow poignant that we don't have an article on Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, but have an article on Daryl Wine Bar & Restaurant—for reasons that are related to Scientology. --JN466 13:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (and ideally delete). A liberal reading of the notability rules sadly probably suggests this place passes the threshold as currently drafted, and nor can I see anyone closing this saying there's a consensus for deletion, even discounting the "Keep, seems notable" comments. However, as noted that's kind of the problem. Strong Delete after thinking a bit more and reading further comments below. A strict/common sense reading of notability guidelines would exclude basic reviews. And we can still exercise judgment about notability rather than simply rely on bare minimum sourcing. WP should not be a review aggregator N-HH talk/edits 14:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Are we saying commercial establishments such as restaurants and even shops or hotels can be included purely on the basis that they've been reviewed once or twice? That every such place that's ever featured in the reviews that appear weekly or even daily - outside of the main news sections - in the 10s of 1000s of local papers around the world and in the local/lifestyle/travel sections of the national papers can get a page here? Welcome to the world of spam. Plus if this page stays, it needs gutting from all the PR fluff and hype currently in it. N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we saying commercial establishments such as restaurants and even shops or hotels can be included purely on the basis that they've been reviewed once or twice? - If twice or more, I would personally answer a resounding "yes" and I don't see how this qualifies as "spam". It only means we cover information that has been noticed by reliable sources. --Cyclopiatalk 16:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the case with all products including individual models of toys. Most product articles with two press mentions anywhere, of any length, will survive AfD. Welcome to WikiMall. Miami33139 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know that establishes "notability" as commonly understood. It just means the hotel or restaurant exists, and that a newspaper or magazine sent their reviewer there, or the reviewer was invited to pop along, that week. I know news sections are hardly free from the predations of the PR industry either, but surely there is - and WP should acknowledge as much - the distinction between news reporting of places and events in serious newspapers, and the reviews in travel and lifestyle sections of everything from the local freesheet upwards? And if we're going to rely on hard policy here, we could also look at WP:NOT, which clarifies, among other things, that WP is not a directory, a travel guide or a means of promotion. N-HH talk/edits 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, not Cyclopedia It doesn't simply means that the venue exists: it means that a secondary source has taken note of it and published about it. There are concerns of potential bias in such coverage (see above exchange with Frank), but this is not a problem for WP:GNG. Also covering venues documented in multiple RS does not make a directory, travel guide or means of promotion of us, no more than for every other kind of article. --Cyclopiatalk 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I misread your name, and you obviously missed the "and" after "exists", which introduced the second part of the sentence/point. All square. Look this kind of page has no encyclopedic value. Based as it is entirely on reviews - because there appears to be no other or substantive coverage in reliable, third party sources - what information is it giving the reader other than that they might get a nice meal if they go there, at least for a few years until the place closes down and the space hosts a different business? Where is any information about the significance of its existence or history, or even of its menu, or about its relevance as an institution to the area or locality? You know, the kind of thing you might find in an actual news report, or an academic work. And if we allow this kind of thing, on this weak criteria, there are 100s of 1000s of pages on restaurants, hotels and shops waiting to be written. Which is when we would indeed become a directory. N-HH talk/edits 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with N-HH. We become such a directory at our peril. --JN466 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also. Wikipedia has a big problem. Because this is a wine-related article, I'll point out that almost exactly the same debate we're having now already happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards. The article was deleted, using the deletion rationale outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) (a proposed guideline, not official). That guideline was written specifically to clarify the issues we're having with notability thresholds for Daryl Wine Bar. The closing admin clearly recognized the problems and deleted the article in spite of no consensus (and remember, this isn't a vote; the arguments are what matter). However, the article was restored in the subsequent deletion review, because in the end, it could conceivably pass the fuzzy, muddy thresholds as currently drafted in the official guidelines. That's why I gave this restaurant a 'keep' vote in spite of my misgivings. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While this isn't a place to change a guideline, it is the place to interpret them (all of them, not just one). This isn't a machine to grind through, it's people discussing what is rational and sensible. As you point out, the guidelines are fuzzy, so people should consider, does or could an article about this restaurant improve WP? Is it an encyclopedic topic? Does it fulfill the spirit of the guidelines as well as the muddy letter thereof? Njsustain (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP and while the sources seem to be sufficient, I find their application WP:UNDUE. Or I'm wrong and every similar little resto should have such an article. MURGH talk 21:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IAR. Even if this article meets WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP, the encyclopedia is harmed by its precedent-setting inclusion. That is, if this article really does meet WP:N (and I'm not saying that it does), then that's an indication that WP:N needs to be refined, not an indication that this article should survive deletion. The above comment about the nature of product (especially restaurant) reviews are spot on--a review of a product simply can't establish notability; note that product reviews are not the same as either scholarly reviews or artistic reviews. Allowing local reviews (or regional, or however we define the non-national/international aspects of the WSJ) will, as others have pointed out, necessarily imply that hundreds of thousands of local restaurants deserve inclusion. It even leads to the somewhat perverse (in the general sense of the word, not the sexual sense) result that restaurants in smaller locales will be more likely to be included, because in a smaller region, fewer restaurants means fewer reviewing targets, and thus a greater chances of achieving the threshold number of reviews than a restaurant in a larger region. My point is that I think this is definitely a case where we need to look more holistically at the issue, rather than just focusing on strictly applying the guidelines one way or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing something, but how is WP harmed if this article is kept?Jarhed (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite our best intentions to evaluate most things (especially AfDs) on their own merits, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS inevitably creeps into discussions. If we keep articles like this on the basis of several reviews and nothing (or not much) else, the sentiment is that it will open the floodgates to more, similarly questionably notable articles to be created. Whether the actual result of such a condition is harm or something else may be debatable, but I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest it would certainly change things around here.  Frank  |  talk  06:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what essentially what I meant. There's no particular harm from this one article; the harm is in the more general idea that company/products with this level of pseudo-coverage (i.e., review only) merit their own article. Of course, the real solution is to do some work on the more explicit policy, like GNG, but in the meantime, we should delete this article (and others like it) on the grounds that the encyclopedia would be harmed by a proliferation of these types of articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the encyclopedia would be much harmed instead if the article is deleted -and if similar articles are deleted. It would mean that we apply an arbitrary bias on the RS coverage to decide what is encyclopedic and what not. We should be firm and logical and not apply such personal biases in deciding what is worth an article. We have an objective criteria which is WP:GNG: if N>1 reliable sources talk about a subject, then the subject is presumed to be notable. Deviation from this criteria means that we select articles on the basis of our personal preferences on what should be in the encyclopedia, not on the basis of objective criteria. --Cyclopiatalk 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete puffed up directory entry that looks like a promotional effort for a minor new jersey restaurant. There is no encyclopedia article lurking here.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have sat and watched this for several days and have decided after reading lot of arguements that its a boderline case which i have to lean torwards delete. as it fails WP:GNG, Just because there are sources on a topic does not mean we should have an article on the topic. My mother worked in the restaurant review media outlet during her college years in san diego, if anyone reads them regularly like my mother still does (even though she is an accountant) one is quick to realize they are often press releases called masquerading journalism. Get me something outside of Awards, Restaunts Reviews and the such and i might reconsider; but right now i am leaning torwards getting rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. This is an interesting discussion, but it seems to be overlooking one element of General Notability Guidelines, namely significant coverage in reliable sources creates only a presumption of notability. This is relevant, because as someone who has published a restaurant guide, I can attest that almost every restaurant in any country with modern media meets the significant coverage test. But as the guideline says, this does not guarantee that the restaurant deserves a stand-alone article, and editors may conclude the contrary. Especially if inclusion contravenes What Wikipedia is Not - which I think it would on numerous grounds. I don't think editors supporting deletion need to argue that sources such as reviews are inherently unreliable. Coverage in reliable sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition of notability. This comment applies to just about any commercial business of course.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. KD Tries Again has it exactly right. It's not about counting sources; it's about what the sources say that determines whether a commercial business is notable or not. While the sources establish that the restaurant exists, that it has been reviewed in newspapers and ranked in surveys, they do not establish that this restaurant is significant to its community's cuisine or culture, or that it is a local landmark or otherwise significant. So this does not appear to me to have the sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance that leads to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY we should not attempt to list every restaurant, nor have an article on them. If this article satisfies a technical interpretation of WP:ORG, then that guideline needs tweaking to clarify that getting some good reviews for a restaurant is not sufficient to establish notability. While this article would be excellent at wikirestaurant, it is simply not encyclopedic in nature and does not belong here. The restaurant business has established procedures for having reviews published: people like to read what's hot; publishers like to fill space with readable stuff; restaurants like the exposure. That process means we need to examine sources carefully and discount routine coverage, even when that routine coverage involves top media outlets. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KD Tries Again put her finger on it: "Coverage in reliable sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition of notability." Hear, hear! We don't have to include any articles we don't want to, OK? This article belongs in a restaurant guide but not in a general encyclopedia. Herostratus (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this restaurant page is formated similarly to and better sourced than most of the other restaurant pages out there, of which we can find multiple examples Category:Restaurants in the United States by state. Now I don't usually edit restaurant pages but when compared to what the restaurant community here on wikipedia deems appropriate for inclusion I think this article goes above and beyond the requirements for restaurant articles. here is another list of twenty which do not have nearly the sourcing etc as this article Category:Restaurants in New Jersey. so while KD is right that secondary sourcing does not necessarily mandate notability, when compared to what is notable for a restaurant article on wikipedia this article fits the bill. with so many other restaurant articles out there I wonder why people specifically targeted this one, it looks like a vendetta rather than a positive regard for the encyclopedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I for one read about this on the WP:WINE talkpage. Please don't try to smear those making well-reasoned arguments about why we should not have quasi-adverts for random restaurants of no obvious note above and beyond the fact that they are places that serve food as being part of some bizarre vendetta. And even if everyone here did have that motivation, it wouldn't debunk the arguments they are making, or provide a reason for keeping this kind of stuff - or other examples like it, as it happens. N-HH talk/edits 14:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, no smering was intended. It is just information that can help the closing admin assessing consensus. --Cyclopiatalk 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted the link...I think it speaks for itself quite well.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment while I do agree that WP:OTHERSTUFF DOES NO...damn caps lock...t make a valid argument, when I comment on areas outside the philosophy sections of wikipedia I do look at what the encyclopedia community in that section deems appropriate for inclusion and what that community consensus appears to be (so I don't become a fly by night editor raining my holy and well informed vengeance upon the uniformed masses of...whatever wikipedia community I have deemed unfit for editing...cue "Flight of the Valkyries"). so since I am not familiar with what makes an appropriate restaurant article according to community consensus I took a look at those articles and the talk pages to get a feel for the already existing standards, and what I found informed my comment. What I discovered was that this article is actually held to a much higher standard than what that community on wikipedia deems notable, that it follows the formating of those articles, and uses more secondary sources and is better written than most of the restaurant articles. So while other stuff does exist, that other stuff demonstrates a community standard and community consensus that has existed on wikipedia for several years now and which this article not only follows but also goes above and beyond that standard.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have absolutely no basis for saying that the community deems all existing restaurant articles notable. These articles have not undergone scrutiny, certainly not AfD. Like I said the whole category is a mess. I also seriously resent the notion that people are here because of some third party website that reviews various Wikipedia related issues. This is simply a smear and an attempt to get the article creation sympathy votes. Whatever they do on that website has no bearing at all on whether or not this entry should be kept. Keep your eyes on the relevant policies please ... or in your case start looking at those policies please.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my basis is the already existing articles that have been edited for years which do establish what the community standard is regardless of wither or not they have undergone direct scrutiny. and I didn't say that they deem all existing restaurant articles notable, I said that based on what exists in the various restaurant articles this article is held to a much better standard than the average. And you can go ahead and resent the fact that this article has shown up on wikipedia review on an anti-cirt webpost prior to the AFD and afterwards has become the most heavily trafficked restaurant AFD in the history of wikipedia, resent it all you like, it isn't a smear but an accurate observation. How many restaurant and wine articles in the AFD have this much traffic? Can you point to even one AFD that has occurred in the last month in these categories that has generated this level of discussion or even half the discussion as shown here? yet this article is a better example than most that already exist (as you pointed out). yet I recognize some of the names here from past AFD's that have shown up on WR on Cirt specific posts. while I do understand that not every editor here is a WR meatpuppet, the wikipedia review thread is very informative on why this AFD has garnered such attention.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could point to precedents set at various AfD discussions of such articles that's one thing, but what exists is meaningless if people aren't even paying attention to it. I've been trying to clean up some of these articles in the last few days and many have been tagged for 2-3 years already -- clearly a lot of attention is being paid to these articles. You could help fix this problem or you could continue to find novel ways to rephrase WP:OTHERSTUFF. Regarding that other website you're still not making any relevant arguments, but instead appealing to the notion that the article creator is a victim of some kind or another. Should we also consider the people voting keep here? Are these regulars at AfDs of restaurants? Doubtful. How did they find out about this? How did you find out about this? I found out about this after noticing the complaint about User:Njsustain on AN/I. I felt he had been treated unfairly by the responding admins, and after reviewing the article I felt that we have a serious problem in this category of content. My response was not to AfD but to start discussions at various relevant venues like the WP:CORP policy page. Once the AfD was underway I made my way here. I bet if you asked individually most of the people at this AfD found out about it through the already ongoing discussions, one of which was at User talk:Jimbo Wales for Pete's sake.Griswaldo (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break #2

[edit]
  • Keep. Meets the General Notability Guideline, and Wikipedia:CORP#Primary_criteria, which specifically says "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." and the New York Times is at least a Regional source. (Actually it's international. I can see the argument that the review going in the Regional section means it's only Regional, but that's good enough. It's a paper from a different state for goodness sakes. Clearly more than Local.) --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This begs the question whether a review counts as "incidental" or "substantial" coverage, and in any case General Notability Guideline makes it clear that coverage alone does not establish notability. I'd just add that I didn't vote to delete this article - it looks like a pretty good article - but the arguments for keeping it largely overlook what General Notability Guideline actually says (to be fair, so do the reasons originally given for deletion).KD Tries Again (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
That the New York Times offices is 45 minutes from this restaurant by train has everything to do with why this restaurant was reviewed. That it happens to be in another state is irrelevent. The fact that it is placed in the regional section means specifically that it was a subject worthy of the paper's local readership, not to its wider audience as a paper of record. That the paper's section is called the "regional" section doesn't mean that it matches the WP guidelnes, and doesn't make the argument "good enough." What I see is people grasping at straws in order to try to fill the technical requirements of notability, but are ignoring the spirit of notability. Even if hypothetically the beancounting of restaurant reviews (and nothing but reviews) filled that peg, that still only meets one of the technical requirements of the guideline, and is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for notability in an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Njsustain (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is admittedly in the section of the paper for "regional" coverage shows that it is not a "local" source. -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note It has been noted before that there is absolutely no clear criteria to determine the difference between "local" and "regional". Please bare this in mind. People tend to use the terms differently.Griswaldo (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The New York Times source discussed is "Standouts Among the Year’s Best", listed in the New Jersey regional section of the paper, itself. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm quite sure The New York Times' intended meaning of "Regional" was not based on a Wikipedia notability guideline, and to assert otherwise neither means anything nor shows anything. Njsustain (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, The New York Times clearly knows the difference between the words "regional" and "local". It used "regional". -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The chosen title of that section is simply recognition that NY and its metro area is a very large one. That Daryl is in the NY metro area shouldn't make it any more notable than a similar restaurant that happens to be in Midland, MI, or Gettysburg, PA and happens to get covered by smaller papers which would dub their local audience's lifestyle section "Local." Njsustain (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not lose Njustain's more important point that bean counting reviews is not enough. These reviews might indeed be reliable sources in WP terms. But restaurants aren't like books or movies. The overwhelming majority of the reviews and awards cited were won by a chef no longer associated with the restaurant. Restaurant reviews don't have enduring validity. This is why I am inclined to think that editors are entitled, per the notability guideline, to make a judgment in this case despite the existence of press mentions (national, local or regional).KD Tries Again (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Beg to differ, restaurant reviews are indeed similar to reviews of books and films. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So a ten year old review of a restaurant is as reliable as a ten year old review of a novel? Of course not, and as if to illustrate my point, note that chef de cuisine at Daryl is now one Chuck Howlett. I don't know if Fernandez is still involved with the restaurant, but we are already two chefs past David Drake, who won the good reviews. This is the nature of the business. The menu will probably be overhauled before this AfD is closed. Moby Dick may garner different interpretations as the years past, but Ahab is still skipper of the ship.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Yes, both are as reliable, because we are presenting chronological history, not simply current events, but a totality of historical info on a subject in an article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to using old reviews as sources of historical info. We are talking about notability, and relying not on the factual content of the sources but their appraisal of the restaurant - an appraisal which is now two chefs out of date. There is a reason restaurant guides are republished annually.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
We're not relying on their appraisal at all, merely the fact that they gave one. They could have written that the restaurant was a jewel and the reviewer would never eat anywhere else again, or that it was a pigsty, crawling with cockroaches, and the reviewer need to get her stomach pumped immediately after leaving. For purposes of notability, either would do. The important factor is that the New York Times judged the restaurant important enough to write about. So should we. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment. I see many of the delete comments trying to squirm around the fact that it received multiple coverage on RS, and referring to the "presumption" clause of WP:GNG. Now, the "presumption" clause is not a blanket to justify deletion of whatever we we dislike. It means that an article can be at odds with WP:NOT, or that information can be better merged in another article. We must have some damn good reason to explicitly delete reliably sourced information from here. Some of the comments amusingly try to say that it meets WP:NOT because "we would then become a directory of restaurants". This is other nonsense masked as if it was policy, since the fact that we cover a lot of X doesn't mean we become a "directory" of X. Does the fact that we list Nobel prize winners violates WP:NOT because we become a "directory of Nobel prize winners"? Of course not. Now, there is a reason for WP:N to not care about how general and how outstanding from the mass is the subject: because we want to avoid bias. We should not judge how "important" is a subject. We should take as good indicator the fact that RS have judged it important enough to write on it. We may not like it, but that's the way it is, and we shouldn't put our "who-cares-about-restaurants-in-ny" reaction in front of this fact. I personally don't care at all about the restaurant per se. But I care of the fact that RS have written about it, and therefore it is sourced knowledge that we can and should cover, once someone has written about it. Everything else is just our bias: we are simply not used to see restaurants in encyclopedias, and so we react. But that's not how we should work. We should be objective. --Cyclopiatalk 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should be aware that Cirt has opened a thread at RSN about the status of the New York Times as a local or regional source, and posted links to the discussion on the talk pages of a couple of the Keep voters above, along with thanks for their keep votes. --JN466 17:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, was not asking for them to comment there, just commenting to hopefully get some clarity on the desperate attempts by a few users to discount The New York Times as a source. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified at the (two) userpages of those users, that I was not asking them to comment at WP:RSN. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOT point is too easily dismissed. Of course covering one example of X doesn't mean we become a directory of every example of X, but it needs to be taken seriously that almost every restaurant in a country where the media is at all developed will be mentioned more than once by reliable sources. The directory of restaurants possibility is a real one, not just a debating point KD Tries Again (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

I don't get it. If all restaurants have been covered more than once by RS, it means they're presumed notable unless very serious reasons come to think otherwise. WP:NOTDIR does not mean "we should only cover a subset of a given category of things". We cover all chemical elements, practically all asteroids and so for: does this make a directory of WP? WP:NOTDIR means something much different, that we shouldn't create entries which are mere directories, like if we compiled a directory of all products currently in the Tesco catalogue. --Cyclopiatalk 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors had supported inclusion on the basis that reviews called the restaurant "standout" and "excellent" and referred to its Zagat score. I hadn't fully recognized, until I saw GRuban's comment above, that one might support the inclusion of lousy restaurants, so long as they've been mentioned in a guide or a newspaper. Presumably the same would go for any business. Interesting.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
I think there was a bit of misunderstanding. As far as I understand it, these editors pointed at that because these "awards", for want of a better word, were further coverages indicating notability. It would have been the same if it had been listed in an hypothetical "NYT Hall of Shame of Restaurants": in both cases it meant it would have had being chosen for a particular aspect by RS. --Cyclopiatalk 20:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, then, what the presumption clause in WP:GNG means?KD Tries Again (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
It means that there are instances in which a separate article is not necessary. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/South_Hills_Crossbill: while the subject is obviously notable, it is best covered in another larger article. Also, a subject can be notable but an article on it could violate other policies like WP:BLP1E for example. But it should NOT be a blanket to say "we should delete whatever we don't like, ignoring blatantly that RS talk about it". --Cyclopiatalk 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly not the latter, but it absolutely doesn't say the former either. It could easily talk about articles ripe for merging, but it just doesn't. Tedious to quote, but it says precisely this: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." It then gives one example - presumably not exclusive, because it's an "example" - of a reason that consensus might not be reached.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
  • delete fails WP:CORP by a mile, we might as well stick up every two bit fastfood takeaway as they would be have an article based on the reasoning given here by some. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the coverage is sufficient, and the article does read neutrally enough now. We cannot disregard all reviews, even though restaurant reviews are notoriously kind to restaurants. We should be wary of trade press, but coverage in high circulation regional papers and the NYT is enough to indicate that this restaurant is worth writing about. Are we to now disbar film reviews or any other kind of review from counting towards notability? That argument is not sustainable. Yes, hundreds more restaurants in New York and New Jersey might be worth writing about too, and someone should get around to writing about Gordon Ramsay's restaurant at Claridge's, but really that's irrelevant to this debate. Slippery slope arguments like Cameron Scott's just above are hysteria, as nobody is suggesting that every takeaway, kebab shop or chippie should have an article. Cirt should take care to avoid writing puff pieces and writing about things other than those connected with Scientology critics would seem wise, but Cirt's motivation in writing this should not have any impact on our decision - and I feel that many editors want this deleted to "punish" Cirt as they thought he was a paid editor. Fences&Windows 13:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure there is an element of the latter, magnified by the way Cirt aggressively seeks to invoke administrative sanctions against anyone seeking to interfere with his or her articles. But personality and behavioural issues aside, the more important point about notability is that all the sources cited are written for a local audience. Notability, to me, means that the subject of an article is of interest to a general audience. Films and commercial products have an international, or at least national, distribution. They are of general, not just local interest, and that to me is what distinguishes the two. We should not become a directory of local restaurants for every neighbourhood in the world. --JN466 14:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And, any number of these already exist, such as Wikicompany.org.  Frank  |  talk  14:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although not every takeaway, kebab shop, etc has coverage in reliable sources, I am certain most of them (in countries and cities with developed media) in fact do.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Arbitrary break #3

[edit]
  • Keep, the plethora of references on the page make it rather obvious that it meets WP:GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's obvious to me that the "plethora" of references are all run of the mill (i.e. they all occurred in due course of time) reviews and nothing more. Beancounting does not itself satisfy the GNG, as others have noted. Njsustain (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of sources. NYT isn't your normal small town paper. A small town paper may have 10 restaurant to write about, and then write about all of them. The NYT has to actually choose which to write about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no, it just means it's a restaurant that's been reviewed in the local/lifestyle sections of a couple of newspapers - one of which happens to be the NYT - and restaurant directories, like most restaurants have been. All the article tells us, for the most part, is whether those reviewers liked the decor, ambience and the food or not. None of the content or sources point to notability or explains why this place is significant in any particular way. As WP:ORG says - "When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment ..." Come on, we can do more than count G-hits, even if they do bring up the New York Times. N-HH talk/edits 17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Peregrine, you're basically saying that every restaurant covered by the NY Times by default can have an article on WP, period? What other papers are of this lofty position, and who decides them? The NY Times has a local readership, just like any other paper, and the NY Times happened to pick this local restaurant to review. That it is an expensive restaurant that happens to be in the NY metro area doesn't mean it automatically deserves notability. Njsustain (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to weigh in on this, but the arguments here have become utterly absurd. The answer is "Yes". A full-length review in a newspaper like the NYT, Washington Post, LATimes, Times of London, The Guardian, Herald-Tribune, etc.... ie. nationaly and internationally preeminent news organizations are, by defintion, notable. We are not talking about the Free Weekly Podunk Picayune. That is what notability is; it is established by coverage in prominent, reliable, independent secondary sources with reputations for strong editorial review, not by tortured rationalizations by Wikipedia editors. Fladrif (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews appeared in the New York Times' New Jersey section, which is distributed locally, not nationally. You wouldn't have been able to read about it if you had bought the NYT in California. --JN466 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Tortured rationalizations" are rampant on both sides of this debate. Many people believe common sense says that this is just another restaurant (it may be good and may be expensive... but so what?) and there is nothing of particular note about it. That an expensive restaurant 45 minutes from Manhattan was reviewed (not covered for something notable, just for the fact that it serves food... a restaurant that serves food... how amazing) by the Times was an ordinary event, not a notable one. Njsustain (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamental misconception here. Notable does not mean "out of the ordinary". Notable means "deserving to be noted". What is our criteria to determine if something is "deserving to be noted"? To see if other reliable sources have, effectively, noted it. Since they did, we can say with confidence that it is notable. Out of the ordinary events are usually deserving to be noted, but the implication does not goes the other way round. --Cyclopiatalk 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much a fundamental misconception, but a fundamental philosophical difference which is at the basis of many discussions like this on Wikipedia. On the one hand, if it has any coverage in a WP defined RS it deserves an article, end of debate. On the other hand, simply appearing in an RS here or there is only the starting point; editors can then make a decision as to whether it's encyclopedic. The discussion about the Times here is almost beside the point - almost any restaurant is mentioned in restaurant guides if not in newspapers. That makes it encyclopedic?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
My opinion is that, while here there is a reasonably objective definition of "notable" (having been noted in >1 RS), there is no objective definition whatsoever of "encyclopedic" (that I am aware of). What lurks behind words like "encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" is usually "I am used to see/not see these subjects covered in paper encyclopedias". We still reason with expectations that come from a previous world, in which there were definite practical and commercial constraints to what went into encyclopedias and what not. Wikipedia can do better than this, because it doesn't suffer from those limits. We can therefore bypass the editorial decisions that old reference works had to do because of their constrains, and rely on objective criteria, like the definition of notable. Am I used to see tons of restaurants in encyclopedias? No, I am not. Is this a rational reason to remove restaurants from this encyclopedia? No. --Cyclopiatalk 11:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that besides the point of whether it CAN be included in WP is whether it ought to be. Simply because it is possible to prove that something exists in RS does not mean that there ought to be an article on it. Why should there be an article on a restaurant, the extent of whose notability is that, yes, it is confirmed in several papers that it is a restaurant? Is that the purpose of an encylopedia (electronic or otherwise), to list restaurants which, hold onto your hats, serve food? We have different opinions on this, but frankly, if this is included, than anything and everything (not just businesses, but any ordinary topic of non-general interest, will be in WP. That isn't WP's purpose, from my perspective. Njsustain (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect reliably sourced information and present it in a structured form to the reader. I think any objective definition stops there. And I yes, I am not talking of "can", I am talking of "ought". That topics of non-general interest enter the encyclopedia (even paper, old school ones), already happens: how is sedenions a "topic of general interest"? It interests only a small subset of mathematicians. Yet nobody would seriously argue to remove it.
Note that I am emphatically not talking of violating WP:EVERYTHING. We have a reasonable criteria to restrict what enters the encyclopedia, that is general notability, in the meaning of having been noted by sources. If something is not reasonably covered by secondary sources, better leave it out usually. We should stick by it, because it is a very general and reasonably objective criteria. What we should not do is enter our prejudices against topics in deciding what to leave out and what not. To let our biases creep to decide what is "worth" and what is not, this is not WP purpose at all. --Cyclopiatalk 13:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That people need to decide these things shows that there is more than just "objective criteria", which may or may not be appropriately defined, to examine. I don't think prejudices and biases are necessarily a factor when deciding whether that typical restaurant down the street deserves an entry in an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Njsustain (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand Cyclopia's position, which I know many editors share. It's also almost automatic to react to dissension from that position with accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But again, the position is contrary to WP:GNG which says absolutely clearly that appearance in RS creates only a presumption of notability, as well as contrary to WP:CORP which places a series of qualifications on RS (not necessarily applicable in this case, but applicable generally). That coverage in RS automatically triggers a stand alone article is a respectable view, but it's not the community consensus as yet.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
  • Delete - the article is well written and well referenced. However, wine bars including upscale wine bars are basically "local outlets" of the type where 99+% are definitely non-notable even if written about somewhere, because there are sources which specifically review everything "new" in the restaurant world, at least if it comes up to the level above a new branch of McDonald's. In comparison to restaurants, I would set the "notability bar" for wine bars considerably higher, because there is less an individual wine bar "does themselves" that gets followed by peers, while dishes &c. in high-end restaurants gets "copied" by other chefs, which means that the influence of these restaurants can go beyond the local. I have never heard of a wine bar that customers travels to from afar, which food geeks definitely do for restuarants at a certain level. Wine geeks such as myself are definitely willing to travel far to wineries and wine region, but not really to wine bars, in my experience. Tomas e (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a restaurant in metropolitan New York, the coverage is local and routine, and the awards are unremarkable. Keeping such an article would set the bar of inclusion for restaurants far far too low, and the resulting compendium would violate NOT easily, by any common sense and median concept of what is and is not an encyclopaedia, even on the Wikipedia model. Guidelines cannot and do not over-ride NOT in any situation, so if the GNG or CORP or anything else supports inclusion of this particular restaurant, then they are wrong and need redrafting. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely--by saying this restaurant is notable simply because it was reviewed by the NYT is bascially saying that restaurants that open in large metropolitan areas are notable, and restaurants (or other entities which are routinely covered by newspapers serving the respective area) which are otherwise identical but open in small metro areas are less likely to be considered "notable" by whatever arbitrary meter of newspaper beancounting is considered so. That's simply not a rational way to determine notability. Njsustain (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No evidence of the sort of notability required by WP:CORP. A few reviews certainly don't do it, otherwise every restaurant open for more than a few weeks would deserve an article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why has nobody tried to edit it into a less promotional article written in a more encyclopedic style? The article as it stood was repetitive and over-expansive. So I just now did rewrite it, doing my usual: replacing the repeated use of the name with either "the restaurant" or, preferably, "it"; removing trivial business details of no possible general interest; removing over-categorization and see-alsos; simplifying the section on reviews, using shorter quotes, & giving them once only; simplifying the section on awards, and giving them once only, not three times over with a totally unwarranted table--considering all 4 were from the same publication in the same year. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as edited It's perfectly true that our standards on restaurants are very inclusive. We could perfectly well argue that it is over inclusive--I actually agree with the nominator about that. As I see it, guidelines based on the GNG will increasingly prove to be over-inclusive as we are able to see more sources. I agree with some of the criticism on sources: the NYT NJ Section does not have the same reviewing standards as the reviews in the restaurant column of the main paper--while certainly NYT+Zagat is sufficient for WP:N if its the main section, it's not quite so automatic for the suburban portions, and more than any other regional paper. The awards are regional, not national, and i do not think we usually count rewards at this level for automatic notability of anything, though it can help. But all in all the restaurant does seem of regional not just local significance, and I think that meets our present standard. (I note that whether the restaurant is good or bad is irrelevant; a bad restaurant just like a bad product or a bad movie receiving wide notice because of its lack of virtues is notable--we're an encyclopedia , not a restaurant guide. (I note also that at least in the sections quoted, the reviews show notability as a restaurant, not a wine bar, so I consequently removed some of the over-generous wine cross-references.) The infobox also is too expansive in my opinion, but if that's the style for restaurants I didn't want to change it. The solution, I think, is to keep the actual articles in proportion. I tried to do it here. I care very much about keeping the encyclopedia free from promotion, but the difference between promotion and information is not just in what is covered, it is in what is said and how it is said. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for taking the time for these edits. I agree that *if* the article is kept, this is a much more appropriate version, and agree with your specific comments about items which made it seem promotional. I still will not vote as per the promise I made previously. I also wanted to ask, since the Zagat rating is included, as it is apparently considered a RS, and that the Zagat rating is done by voting, would it not be appropriate to quote other comments from Zagat's website ( Link ) (either positive or negative)? If one looks at the listed comments, it seems there has, according to these comments, been a major change in service this calendar year. It would be supremely ironic (to the WP community after all this discussion) if the restaraunt went out of business soon. (And if that happens, would this affect the notability?) Njsustain (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2010 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant&oldid=1145837965"