Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caravaggio (restaurant)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Caravaggio (restaurant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reviewed, but not otherwise notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviews are acceptable as sources as they are what we expect to see for other topics such as plays, films and books. Andrew (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets  Passes WP:GNG per in-depth reviews in New York Magazine and Crains. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The New York Times source listed below by User:Epeefleche has changed my !vote from "meets" to "passes". Northamerica1000(talk) 19:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete the reviews cited are run of the mill for every fancy restaurant in New York City. I don't even see an assertion of notability for this restaurant. It's intersted that the chefs are, I believe, from the Amalfi coast and authentic Italian should be applauded, but on what basis is this resaurant worth covering in an encyclopedia? That they have a known artist's paintings displayed? It seems thin to say the least. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica1000 07:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Andrew and Northamerica. And the New York Times in-depth review, as well as the others indicated above.  As wp:corp states, "A company ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources ... reliable, and independent of the subject." That's exactly what we have here.  The nomination fails to understand that for wp purposes, the notability we look for is precisely secondary coverage -- nom's belief that there must be further, separate "notability" (which he fails to define) is incorrect, as it does not accord with wp notability guidelines. The above K !votes are based on wp policy. The above D !votes appear to be based not on wp's definition of notability, but rather on personal definitions.  --Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the policies that you are quoting? Have you read WP:CORPDEPTH? This specifically says that the depth of coverage must be considered and "acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as ... routine restaurant reviews..." All the sources for this article are reviews or dead or the restaurant's own website. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the detailed and lengthy review sources to be trivial or routine, due to the depth of coverage in them, respectively. Rather, they serve to establish notability for this restaurant, at least per GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Phila -- yes, sometime during my time making 120,000+ edits at the Project, I've actually read and understood the policies I quoted. The reviews here are ones, such as the NYT review above, that are not "routine" restaurant reviews, but in-depth restaurant reviews.  You mis-read the policy -- reading it as though the word "routine" does not appear there.  It does.  And it is an elementary rule of construction that when a word appears, it appears for a reason.  Here, the reason is to distinguish between "routine" reviews and "non-routine reviews," such as the in-depth reviews here. And, as North points out, the article meets GNG (which is all it ever needed to do in the first place ... even if an article does not meet wp:corp, it is certainly sufficient if it meets GNG).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely follow what you say above. Clearly the term "non-routine" suggests that there could be a review that was sufficiently in depth to qualify as non-routine. I have just been through the sources and discounting the perfunctury ones and one that is dead we have one "in depth" review from the NYT and two that I would describe as routine:
 * http://www.crainsnewyork.com/opinion/restaurant-reviews/details/9/2294907
 * http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/caravaggio/
 * In evaluating whether these are routine or not we have to use our judgement, the policy doesn't say exactly how detailed they have to be, that's why this is done by humans, and we are free to disagree. As for the GNG test, that does not specify the number of sources required. Here we have three. It's not enough for me but it might be for you. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you done a wp:before search? If so, did you find any further coverage?
 * What I see is more than routine coverage.


 * As to the number of sources required by GNG -- not by you in terms of your personal criteria, but rather by the Project -- there is nothing that supports the notion that the Project's criteria is your personal criteria of "three is not enough for me." To the contrary, wp:GNG states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." "Three" meets GNG's general expectation of "multiple" sources. You can make up your own criteria and say "three is not enough for me" ... but that's just a personal standard, and not the Project standard, and therefore not of any great moment as we make AfD decisions based on Project notability standards rather than personal standards (though personal standards have more room for play, in ... say ... decisions as to whether to !vote for someone to be an admin).  Plus, the New York Times review is in impressive depth, but the Gael Greene review is also non-routine both in length and given who wrote it, and the New York Magazine review is also more than a routine passing mention. A smaller review, albeit by an extremely important publisher in the area of restaurant review, is the unmentioned Michelin review, for example ... and all these together are clearly "multiple" and clearly meet GNG.


 * And that's without even giving a nod to last week's NY Post article. Which opened with "George Clooney, Barbara Walters and Betsey Johnson all at separate tables at Caravaggio restaurant on the Upper East Side on Wednesday. Clooney hosted a dinner for 10 including his parents and producing and screenwriting partner Grant Heslov, celebrating their movie “The Monuments Men.” Clooney was also spotted daring designer Johnson to do one of her trademark cartwheels . . ." ... though it does puzzle me that those three are eating separately at a non-notable restaurant.


 * We base our AfD decisions on WP criteria of notability, measured by coverage, and this is just the sort of coverage a restaurant that is notable attracts (and it need not be more than five years old to be notable).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was a simple one, where the policy does not give a specific number we are called upon to use our judgement as to what is enough and that is inevitably subjective and what I think is enough might be different from what you think is enough, as long as there are at least two sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is getting long. But the WP criteria in GNG refers to "multiple sources" generally being expected.  And here we do have multiple sources.  3 or 4 of which are discussed above.  See the definition of multiple here. So this does not suffer at all from "failing" to meet GNG's criterion as to number of sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - More or less routine coverage of a restaurant only established in 2009. If it were located anywhere else other than NYC we probably would not even be having this debate as it would have been PRODded into oblivion. Carrite (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (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.