Talk:Tom Aikens

WP:FOOD Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom Aikens (restaurant)
Where did you discuss the merging of Tom Aikens (restaurant) into Tom Aikens. Usually a restaurant with a Michelin star is deemed to be notable. The Banner talk 10:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was bold, but you can revert it back. However, in my view, even a Michelin-starred restaurant's notability may not guarantee a well-expanded article or the sufficient quality (even if not GA) needed. Also, I want the description about the restaurant to be brief as possible but also concise. However, I am uncertain whether any reliable sources, even reviews, would bring any worthwhile info about the eponymous restaurant. With absence of MoS guidelines about restaurants, I figured that the restaurant article would be better merged to the chef one. I may stand corrected, nonetheless. --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have reverted this merge. A notable restaurant is just notable, even when the article needs TLC. The Banner  talk 16:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the restaurant article must be merged into the eponymous chef one. I thought about expanding the restaurant article in the draft version. However, I thought the background and the history of the restaurant would be very similar to the chef article, and reception wouldn't make any difference. I'm disgruntled about the revert of the redirection of the restaurant article, even when the restaurant earned two Michelin stars in 2000s. --George Ho (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Very bad idea to merge two subjects that are both notable. The article about the restaurant should only and only focus on the restaurant itself. De section "Background" is irrelevant, as it is not about the restaurant. What happened with the building afterwards is also irrelevant. The Banner  talk 10:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns about the "Background" section of the draft, but it is needed because the eponymous chef himself is part of the restaurant. No offense, but I find your interpretation of what's relevant to a restaurant or a chef too rigid. Too much rigidity, especially of your interpretations, would affect readers' understanding of an article and its topic. Not just that, too much rigidity would affect article quality and result in so-so articles IMO. I have to reinsert the post-closure info especially because it's a relevant info, even for an article about the chef who gave up his eponymous restaurant. However, you repeatedly reverted the reinsertion. Now I'll be going around circles trying to convince you that the post-closure info is needed. Also, the "spoon" incident is one that I would like included unless you were thinking WP:NOTNEWS. Well, that incident is part of (what I think) the chef's infamy. Well, that's since the incident at Pied a Terre. George Ho (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is essential that you split the info into the right articles. Info about the man in Tom Aikens, info about the restaurant in Tom Aikens (restaurant). Avoid mingling the two.
 * Unfortunately, mingling is what you do. Effect is that both articles loose focus and are in need of a rewrite.
 * The post-restaurant info is really irrelevant. It is not about the restaurant and it is not about the chef. The Banner  talk 15:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to you, but the post-restaurant info is essential to readers who would like to know what happened afterwards. One or two sentences would be enough. The same can be said about brief pre-restaurant info (i.e. Marlborough Arms). Also, mingling isn't much of an issue to me, but the chef's actions have affected his own reputation and his own restaurant. That's why I mingled, but that doesn't mean I lose focus. Seriously, how much have you known this man and his restaurants? George Ho (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot, please note that I could not find guidelines about specifically restaurants and chefs. That leaves us MOS:BIO and WP:MOS. WP:Relevance and WP:What claims of relevance are false and other similar essays... Hmm... There's not one guideline or policy about relevance AFAIK. George Ho (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Relevance of content, Merging, Splitting The Banner  talk 17:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Still an essay (but worth reading) and two how-to guides. An info not being related to the chef shouldn't be a primary reason to remove the post-closure info about the building. What about WP:IAR? George Ho (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Or WP:PAG or WP:NOTBURO? George Ho (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, shall we ask input from others as you are clearly are not listening to me and keep pushing your own POV? The Banner  talk 17:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please back down your accusations on me as a POV-pusher unless you can cite whichever you think is POV-pushing. Okay? George Ho (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, I'll try to listen and take your comments to heart. I already asked for third opinion at WP:3O. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have requested more input here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. The Banner  talk 19:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like, while this is a discussion of notability, the critical question regarding notability has not been addressed: Is there, or is there not, a substantial quantity of independent and reliable source material about the restaurant available? As it stands, the material available in the restaurant article is extremely thin. As of this revision:, the first source is about a completely different restaurant and just mentions that the Aikens one used to be at that location, the second source is about a different restaurant and doesn't even mention it, the third site doesn't exist and appears to be non-independent in any case, and the fourth site is just the restaurant's own website. Unless substantially better and in-depth sourcing about the restaurant can be found, it is not notable and the merge needs to be reinstated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Third opinion


 * How's the draft that I made? Are more reliable independent sources needed? George Ho (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why's that being done in a draft, when a page already exists? But yes, that looks substantially better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I plan to merge the draft version into the existing one soon. @The Banner: You can make edits after the merger to address your concerns; would that do? @Robert: Any comments before going ahead? George Ho (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unsure whether the draft I made, even as improvement over, passes notability line. Now I'm pleased by your feedback. :) George Ho (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:George Ho - What do you plan to merge? Do you plan to merge the restaurant article and the restaurant draft?  If so, good.  Do not merge either of the versions of the restaurant with the article on the chef.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to worry about the notability of the restaurant. I have never seen a one star restaurant that failed the notability guidelines, not to mention two Michelin stars. But as Robert McClenon already states: do not mingle chef en restaurant.
 * Other advice: the accolades deserve a better overview as a list. And review the menu. You state that is was seasonal, so the menu you give was there just a moment in time. I doubt if this snapshot is relevant. The Banner  talk 00:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Spoon" incident
The below information about the stolen spoon incident in 2004 was removed as "irrelevant". "In October 2004, a businesswoman Sarah Roe and her husband Rupert paid GB£536 for the meal after entertaining her clients. As the Roes and her clients were leaving the restaurant, Aikens blocked the doorway and accused her of stealing one of his £16 custom-made silver teaspoons. A waiter found the spoon on a nearby table. Aikens still accused Roe, prompting her to boycott Aikens's restaurants. Prior to the incident, nine such spoons had been stolen within at least one month. When the restaurant opened, several £50-ashtrays were stolen until non-smoking policy was applied a while later." Shall the "spoon" incident be mentioned in the article again? If so, shall the above passage be used? If not, how else can info about the incident be written? George Ho (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, as it is irrelevant for the article about the chef. It is worth a (shorter) mention in Tom Aikens (restaurant). The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Post-closure info
The post-closure info (i.e. Elystan Street) about Aikens's eponymous restaurant was removed twice as "irrelevant" (version 1, version 2). Shall the post-closure be mentioned again? If neither version, yet you favour reinsertion, how else can the post-closure info be (re)written? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Old statement below

The post-closure info about the site of the subject's eponymous restaurant was removed as irrelevant to the chef himself. Here are two versions: Version 1 "A chef Phil Howard, months after selling and leaving The Square, and Howard's business partner Rebecca Mascarenhas opened the restaurant Elystan Street at the former site of Aikens's eponymous restaurant on 27 September 2016. Elystan Street earned its first Michelin star in October 2017." Version 2 "The site would be transformed into a Michelin-starred restaurant Elystan Street, owned by chef Phil Howard and business partner Rebecca Mascarenhas, since its opening on 27 September 2016." Shall the post-closure info be mentioned again? Why or why not? If so, shall either version be used? If neither, then how else can the post-closure info be (re)written? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Both versions have no relevance for both Tom Aikens and Tom Aikens (restaurant). Would you have added it when the restaurant was converted in - for example - a bridal boutique? No? That is my point... The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Harveys (restaurant) mentions the restaurant being relaunched as Chez Bruce, but it's just one short sentence. (I really wish the Marco Pierre White article has done the same.) How is this different from what we're primarily discussing? Also, maybe I'll use the same format that the Harveys article is using. George Ho (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Relaunched under the same ownership vs. a new restaurant with a new owner. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How's (this) version 3: "The site was relaunched in September 2016 under chef Phil Howard as Elystan Street." I already did that at the draft version of the restaurant article. George Ho (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Never mind. I made subsequent changes into (this) version 4: "The site was transformed in September 2016 into Elystan Street under chef Phil Howard and business partner Rebecca Mascarenhas." By the way, I do think the site is still relevant to the restaurant. George Ho (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,600 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How's this statement: "The post-closure info (i.e. Elystan Street) about Aikens's eponymous restaurant was removed twice as "irrelevant" (version 1, version 2). Shall the post-closure be mentioned again? If neither version, yet you favour reinsertion, how else can the post-closure info be (re)written?" George Ho (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's certainly short enough, but it needs to be directly after the tag because Legobot won't look for it way down here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)