Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bistro 990


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bistro 990

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. The lone source here, though in the TIFF section of the Toronto Star, was part of Cynthia Wine's regular column, "Dining Out". It is a standard restaurant critique column, and really does nothing to establish notability of the topic. Notable people eat here during a notable event. That doesn't make this place notable.  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Besides the significant coverage in the Toronto Star admitted to by the nom, which by the way is discriminate and very in-depth, I easily found much more with coverage spanning many years.  Also much more by the Toronto Star by different reporters showing is a major celebrity sighting location, kind of like The Ivy in Los Angeles.   Not "standard restaurant critique" as the nom is claiming (which actually would be considered "significant coverage" per WP:N anyway). --Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than willing to withdraw my nomination if those sources are added to the article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is the existence of significant coverage by independent source. Coverage simply not yet placed into an article doesn't magically mean that significant coverage doesn't exist simply because a Wikipedia user wants them in an article.  If you'd like to keep this AfD open as some kind of WP:POINT, well, I can't stop you. --Oakshade (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be sufficient to avoid deletion under CSD. The article as it is is poorly referenced and reads much more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedic article because none of its statements of fact are sourced. For this reason my current opinion is that it should be deleted. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've only given reasons for article improvement, not deletion. AfD is not an article improvement procedure. --Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right; its a discussion about whether an article merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. Hence the first sentence at WP:AFD reads "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted."


 * I don't believe it does, and I have presented several reasons why I feel that way: It reads like a flyer (advertising is prohibited on WikiPedia), it does nothing to back up its apparant star-studded notability, except a single source (which is not coverage by multiple reliable sources, as governed at WP:GNG). A restaurant review - a regular column in the daily newspaper - does not establish notability; it establishes existance. The notability guideline which covers restaurants is WP:CORP. The Primary criteria section of that guideline reads: "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." For this reason my vote is still Delete. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, a restaurant review (actually multiple reviews in this restaurant's case) is in fact significant coverage as provided by WP:GNG. It doesn't matter if it comes from a "regular column."  That "regular column" in fact is an independent reliable source that has given significant coverage to this topic, the primary criteria of WP:GNG.  And there's multiple sources in this case.  The coverage is far beyond the scope of a "one sentence mention," WP:GNG's example of non-significant coverage.  If the New York Times reviews a film, that film has received significant coverage regardless if the NYTs film review section is a "regular column." --Oakshade (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GNG is for general topics that don't have their own inclusion criteria. Restaurants fall under WP:CORP, which does indicate the need for multiple sources, which were not present in the article at the time of my nomination. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the other way around (under your interesting "rule" WP:GNG can be ignored and only the sub-notability guidelines can be followed). It's multiple sources anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fodor's coverage is significant. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.