Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essência


 * 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__. ✗ plicit  23:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Essência

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

Another non-notable entry by an editor known for their controversial take on WP:N. Here, WP:NOTGUIDE again. A "star" in a travel guide plus promotional entries in local press are insufficient for the relatively high bar of WP:NCOMPANY. — kashmīrī  TALK  18:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Hungary. —  kashmīrī  TALK  18:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Source examination below:
 * 1. The Budapest Business Journal article contains no in-depth coverage at all, focusing instead on minor trivialities:
 * 2. The Chef & Pincer article is entirely an interview, making it non-independent & very primary.
 * 3. The Hungary Today article is a list of many restaurants and lacks in-depth coverage. It's also very short:
 * 4. The Travel Guys article is negative in coverage and also focuses on minor trivialities, lacking any information on the actual restaurant, its history, its cultural impact, or any other meaningful aspect; the review instead analyzes someone's dislike of the food served:
 * 5. This YouTube source from Michelin Guide's channel isn't reliable and is an interview.
 * I will note that earning a Michelin Star doesn't automatically make a restaurant notable. I will also note that even if a source contains large amounts of text pertaining to the subject, it can only prove notability if it's reliable, independent, and contains significant amounts of in-depth coverage. Notability needs to be demonstrated through the existence of reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that significantly cover the subject per WP:CORPDEPTH; if the information in a source is very trivial, it can't prove the subject is notable (see also WP:SIRS). — Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 5. This YouTube source from Michelin Guide's channel isn't reliable and is an interview.
 * I will note that earning a Michelin Star doesn't automatically make a restaurant notable. I will also note that even if a source contains large amounts of text pertaining to the subject, it can only prove notability if it's reliable, independent, and contains significant amounts of in-depth coverage. Notability needs to be demonstrated through the existence of reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that significantly cover the subject per WP:CORPDEPTH; if the information in a source is very trivial, it can't prove the subject is notable (see also WP:SIRS). — Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I will note that earning a Michelin Star doesn't automatically make a restaurant notable. I will also note that even if a source contains large amounts of text pertaining to the subject, it can only prove notability if it's reliable, independent, and contains significant amounts of in-depth coverage. Notability needs to be demonstrated through the existence of reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that significantly cover the subject per WP:CORPDEPTH; if the information in a source is very trivial, it can't prove the subject is notable (see also WP:SIRS). — Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: additional sources from Daily News Hungary and Hungarian Insider, which are both national publications. Some others (e.g. this BBJ article don't have much coverage, but might still be WP:SIGCOV (which only needs to be "more than a trivial mention"). I think we've got enough for WP:NCORP here: there's room to quibble some of the sources for one reason or another, but in my view, however you slice it, we've got multiple, independent, reliable (enough) sources giving WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I'd suggest that there probably should be some Michelin-star based notability guideline: perhaps not simply having one, but we have similar guidelines for people who receive honours recognising them as at the top of their field. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Daily News Hungary looks awfully unreliable. It's not just about the comments under the article – editorial oversight was poor – but their entire staff numbers eight journalists who, as can be seen on clicking their names, typically churn out 6–8 articles a day on any topic imaginable. It's as far from quality journalism as it gets.
 * Hungarian Insider is dodgy. It's unrelated to Business Insider, even as it steals its logo style and layout. It offers no list of editorial staff, no address, articles don't mention author names etc. The domain is registered in New Zealand and owner's identity is hidden. The website looks dead anyway – the most recent news piece on its homepage dates to November 2022 and most are from 2019, the year the website was started. I have no time to verify whether it carried original reporting or – much more likely – simply reposted news from elsewhere after translating them into English. In any case, having anything mentioned on www.hungarianinsider.com does not confer an encyclopaedic notability in the slightest. — kashmīrī  TALK  20:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Daily News Hungary source lacks significant coverage. This is its entire coverage of Essencia:
 * The Hungarian Insider article also lacks SIGCOV, containing only trivial coverage:
 * The problem with these sources is that they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't just look for sources and automatically consider them to be SIGCOV. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial ... coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." No information provided by any of these sources is actually in-depth and detailed. If they were, they'd perhaps analyze the restaurant's operational history, its ownership history, its cultural impact, etc; they focus instead on minor trivialities like food prices and taste, while other sources are routine in coverage. In addition, to determine notability according to SIRS, "individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other." Any one of these sources analyzed on its own fails SIGCOV. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with these sources is that they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't just look for sources and automatically consider them to be SIGCOV. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial ... coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." No information provided by any of these sources is actually in-depth and detailed. If they were, they'd perhaps analyze the restaurant's operational history, its ownership history, its cultural impact, etc; they focus instead on minor trivialities like food prices and taste, while other sources are routine in coverage. In addition, to determine notability according to SIRS, "individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other." Any one of these sources analyzed on its own fails SIGCOV. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with these sources is that they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't just look for sources and automatically consider them to be SIGCOV. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial ... coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." No information provided by any of these sources is actually in-depth and detailed. If they were, they'd perhaps analyze the restaurant's operational history, its ownership history, its cultural impact, etc; they focus instead on minor trivialities like food prices and taste, while other sources are routine in coverage. In addition, to determine notability according to SIRS, "individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other." Any one of these sources analyzed on its own fails SIGCOV. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Nythar's source assessment. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nythar's source assessment. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:03, 3 June 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.