Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Coast Seafood Centre


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

East Coast Seafood Centre
Ad, more or less, for Singaporean restaurant. Given that I had to click the linked mall to find the most basic fact in a business where location is so much, i.e. where it's located, I doubt that there is any notability about this place. Daniel Case 04:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: It is not a restaurant, it is a hawker centre, a rather unique cultural element in Singapore  One of the better-known ones, might I add. 206.255.1.73 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete advert. --Musaabdulrashid 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for a government-built facility to advertise itself. Its the tenents who do so....to their own outlets.--Huaiwei 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not particularly notable even in a local context. It's just a conglomeration of some big restaurants, nothing more. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:SPAM ST47 12:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a great place for tasty seafood the Yellow Pages, looks like WP:SPAM for a non-notable location/business. -- Kinu t /c  13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the new version. Thanks for the cleanup, sourcing, and dePOVing! -- Kinu t /c  17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect, article is generally advertising. I must admit this place has been popular with tourists since its opening. It houses a few of Singapore's best restaurants imo, Jumbo Seafood and Long Beach, the more renowned ones. However, not notable enough for an encyclopedia. A redirect to East Coast Park will be the best option and some information at the article will be good. --Ter e nce Ong (T 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, article has been rewritten into an encyclopedic term, needs expansion though. --Ter e nce Ong (T 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not too sure how many of the above voters are actually Singaporeans, but I must say from a local perspective that this food centre is certainly well reknown for its collection of some of the most celebrated seafood restaurants in Singapore. The quality of the article may need some spring cleaning, but to delete based on allerged non-notability dosent quite fit the bill in my opinion.--Huaiwei 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then please look for, and put, some sources like Straits Times articles or whatever in the article to bolster this argument. Daniel Case 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think I can fish for a Straits Times article now, for why should it suddenly talk about a well-known eating place which has been around for decades? It needs no introduction to locals. Have you tried doing a google search, and see how the Singapore Tourism Board markets it ? Or how about an article like, which was published in the Sunday Times, for something more convincing? I could easily find these sources within two pages in google search, so I find it difficult to believe that you can make such a quick conclusion on its non-notability. Where is your evidence, on hindsight?--Huaiwei 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't need to show evidence, you do. Daniel Case 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And which I did. It seems cosier being a deletionist, is it not? ;)--Huaiwei 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Link one is simply a listing. The Sunday Times article is a different matter. But it seems to be about disputes between restaurant owners, not the center itself. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Link one is an entry in the STB's website about the East Coast range of eateries as a tourism site. A country's tourism agency bothers to have one page just for one hawker centre (and not for most others). I would like to see you arguing the non-notability of small countries next, I suppose. The Sunday Times article talks about "disputes" between eateries in a very sought after location, even when rents where increased almost two-fold. You appear to ignore every other comment on the location in the entire article which repeatedly underscores its popularity and notability at lease in the local context and to tourists.--Huaiwei 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First, please remember to assume good faith. Second, I repeat: link one is a listing. Listings cannot by themselves establish notability. As for the Times article, it has some promise there. What would convince me is some citations from guidebooks saying "Visit this place ...", or writeups from food or travel writers outside Singapore. As it is, you're just asking us to take your word for things. Daniel Case 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would hope everyone may assume good faith here too. What kind of "guidebooks" will fit your expectations, Mr Case? I suppose Vitual Tourist and Explore Holidays  are too low-end for your taste? The New York Times too cliche for consideration  (even thou it was quoted from Fodor's)? The Sydney Morning Herald probably arent culinary experts ? The folks from The Times got their taste buds all wrong when asking folks to go to this place for hosting a restaurant considered to be one of their best in 2006 ? I found all these links and more within four pages in google search. Do you intend not to lift a finger and do any research yourself, while wasting time for those who have to show notability even in a clear-cut case like this?--Huaiwei 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now these are the kind of refs that might establish this place as a notable tourist destination. I would consider withdrawing the nom but for Huaiwei's attitude, particularly as expressed above. First, the burden is and always has been on those advocating keep to supply references supporting a claim to notability. Second, to complain about this is something I fully expect (and have gotten) from single-purpose accounts with no interest in Wikipedia beyond getting their article about some subject of dubious notability on, or people who make things up in school one day, but to see it from a veteran, established editor is particularly dismaying to me. It's conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian IMO. Those who have been asked to supply sources in AfD discussions have earned respect by doing so without complaint. Here, instead, Huaiwei sulks resentfully and seems to be more interested in getting in anti-deletionist jabs than reaching a consensus, suplied refs notwithstanding. Daniel Case 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel, I'm not sure that's a helpful characterisation, even if true. I agree that someone who cares enough about this article ought to be adding the refs, true, but there's no need for anyone participating to be upset about the process, you, Huaiwei, anyone... I'll add them myself if I have time and no one beats me to it. Making an article useful and preservable is more important than proving a point. Sorry to pick on you alone as I think everyone could benefit from that view. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added the references given to the article, it was just a quick cut and paste job so maybe they could be further improved. Many of the references I spot checked were one or two line mentions in an article about Singaporean cuisine reather than in depth articles about this facility, but the guide book entries are more comprehensive and focus on the facility. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Amists 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Huaiwei. &mdash;Sengkang 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, yes, it's a popular tourist spot. I suggested once about bringing Jimbo there. --Vsion 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. - SpLoT 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely the delete camp can see where Huaiwei is coming from. To locals, this is more than notable; it meets WP:CORP - and thus KEEP. – Chacor 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I came to Singapore as a tourist (although technically on business I did get some time to enjoy things) in 2005. Many many people told me I needed to go to ECSC to try the food there. That's anecdotal evidence and not admissable, but does suggest refs for notability are out there if one tries to find them. And Huaiwei has... I see above that Huaiwei has no less then 5 apparent references, some from very notable sources. Let's get those vetted (as more than brief mentions) and actually INTO the article (a pet peeve of mine is that info developed during the course of an AfD doesn't always make it) and then this clearly is a Keep. Note: Without any slight to the original nom, the original article was a delete, and the way it is now is STILL a delete, absent the adding of notability refs given above. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. *drew 04:58, 27 August 2006 (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.