Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cityfields


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Arguments to keep around GNG struggle with the level of verifiable detail in the sources vs opinion. Then someone points out that NCORP applies which requires higher sourcing standards than GNG. I checked for a policy WP:RESTAURANTS which while failed was clearly intended to be a subset of CORP- confirming NCORP in play. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Cityfields

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This restaurant only opened this year, I think April. I think it is a case of TOOSOON with 2 reviews from Melbourne newspapers. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel    (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies,  and Australia.  Nythar  (💬-🍀) 23:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – I agree with Libstar. Those sources offer no indication that this restaurant is notable at the present time or in the future. They'll also need to demonstrate that it's notable outside of the city in which it exists, and they do not. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 23:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The review in The Age meets WP:PRODUCTREV and WP:SIRS. I'm unable to view the other review. I've changed to Keep based on Eastmain's additions. &mdash;siro&chi;o 00:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it? From what I see, it's not SIGCOV. It reads mostly like an advertisement and doesn't contain enough in-depth information such as a moderately thorough review of the restaurant's history, a neutral account of its cultural impact, and other sorts of significant coverage. Most of the article reads like this: "To say the new Social Quarter at Chadstone Shopping Centre is overwhelming is both an understatement", "the restaurant that most symbolises that objective is Cityfields, a venue that matches Chadstone and the Social Quarter in terms of scale, opulence and ambition." From my view, the only acceptable part of the article is the two sentences about the co-owner, Adam Wright-Smith. Even so, it's not really significant. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 00:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I am able to see more of the article than you were, but it goes much deeper than that. It hits all the points of a "significant review" Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. It describes broad context of the restaurant and restaurateur, the location and setting, a general sense of the menu and bar, it describes a specific meal in-depth over several paragraphs far too much o quote here but a sample I didn’t manage one of the giant steaks, but I did try the 250-gram scotch fillet ($54), which came with very good, crispy shoestring fries, was cooked and salted perfectly and which I’d order again in a heartbeat. I wouldn’t order the pepper sauce that I chose to accompany it, however: a touch too sweet with way too few actual peppercorns.. It even has a sense of comparison to standards (eg It’s rare for a vaguely steak-focused restaurant to put this much effort and creativity into its vegetarian main, but this dish showcases Martin’s handle on classic technique as well as his desire to go above and beyond.). It criticizes some of the unique gimmicks as well In press around Cityfields’ opening, much was made of a very fancy machine called a “sling shaker”... Its main function is that it can make a ton of cocktails at once, which is nice, but I’m not sure if the bar has figured out what to do when you only need one and not 12. We ordered their takes on the gin fizz ($22) and the sling ($22), and both were silly and fun when they arrived, but they took about 30 minutes (and no, the bar wasn’t busy; perhaps that was the problem). &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo: I understand the point you're making. But what I'm looking for in the sources is significant amounts of in-depth coverage. Information like food prices, the reviewer's taste, the reviewer's emotional experience, their liking of the restaurant, aren't suitable for Wikipedia articles. E.g., "I didn’t manage one of the giant steaks, but I did try the 250-gram scotch fillet ($54)", "Its main function is that it can make a ton of cocktails at once, which is nice", "We ordered their takes on the gin fizz ($22) and the sling ($22), and both were silly and fun when they arrived" <-- these aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. So, my view is simple: if a source is full of information that can hardly be used for a Wikipedia article, how is its coverage "in-depth" and "significant"? To me, it is trivial. And I am specifically referring to WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, WP:PRODUCTREV states "the reviews must be published outside of purely local ... interest publications", and then links to WP:AUD, which states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". None of the sources are national or regional. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 02:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your dedication to the quality of encyclopedia. I agree that prices (with few exceptions), unattributed opinions, or attributed opinions that give undue weight don't belong in the encyclopedia. I do think that the guidelines suggest that a review that includes such information can be used to establish notability and provide verifiability. I also do understand what you're saying about circulation/interest of publications. As a non-Austratlian, The Age, is decidedly a publication with global interest. Ultimately, all of these guidelines and policies are basically meant to uphold the five pillars. I'm not fundamentally worried about the inclusion of an article about this restaurant risking that. &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Age, is decidedly a publication with global interest." No, not really. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added more references. I think that notability is now demonstrated. The text that sounds like advertising consists of direct quotes from reviews, and so is perfectly acceptable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As long one or two fulfill WP:RS then this might survive. Then again most are news articles so unless you're talking about Mets Field in Flushing, Queens this might get the boot. NYC Guru (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. While this restaurant certainly has a gorgeous interior, it is fairly new and there are only a handful of references that discuss it. This might be notable for a travel magazine or a food magazine (like this), but does not pass WP:GNG for Wikipedia. Knox490 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete – I believe the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. While reviews can certainly be encyclopedic the article needs more than just that and a description of the interior. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I am remembering one more policy called Basic. Okoslavia (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * NBASIC is a guideline for biographies, not companies/organizations/restaurants. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 05:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per new sources added. Although a borderline case but meeting GNG. Okoslavia (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think this passes WP:NCORP with WP:AUD-appropriate coverage. Routine local reviews covering the local news of a restaurant opening doesn't justify an article and it should be more established than a couple months first. A summary of which local newspaper food critic liked or disliked which dish isn't really encyclopedic. Reywas92Talk 16:50, 14 July 2023 (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.