Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jū-Ni (Japanese 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 speedy keep. I'll withdraw this out of respect for Cullen, who I am sure will rework the article as if it was his own, and make it good for the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Jū-Ni (Japanese restaurant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Repeatedly deleted article created by undeclared paid editing sock farm. Probably notable, but that’s irrelevant given the concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There is widespread consensus that Michelin starred restaurants are notable, and there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources for this restaurant, which has a star. I added a quote from the Michelin review so the article is no longer entirely the product of paid editors. The encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn’t matter in this case. It’s a direct recreation of Jū-Ni (restaurant) and Ju-Ni (Japanese restaurant), and based on the SPI, likely creates by freelancers at direction of the company. I know there is disagreement on how to deal with these, but we don’t just let people pay their way to inclusion. If a good faith editor wants to recreate it, that’s fine, but the proxying and TOU violations can’t be allowed to remain. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability always matters and I have expanded the article, adding three additional references. The topic is notable, the article is no longer only the work of TOU violaters, and accordingly, it should be kept in its current form. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We disagree on that point: notability is only a guideline, and whether or not something is notable shouldn't prevent deletion when keeping the subject would be harmful to the encyclopedia, as I believe it would be in this case. It's why it is only one of 14 reasons for deletion. I of course understand your view here (it's why I tagged it instead of deleting myself), and respect it, but I think there are some things much more important to our credibility and thus the value of other articles than just notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a project to build and improve this encyclopedia, not a venture to tear it down because we do not like the motivations of some of its contributors. I am in favor of deleting obviously promotional articles about non-notable or borderline topics but I will always oppose deleting articles about notable topics when good faith editors (myself in this case) have made significant contributions to the article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, I respect your view, but I disagree with it quite strongly. By deleting this article, we are raising the value of every other article: spam makes us lose credibility, even if it is notable. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a advertising directory of notable companies. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - article is significantly different, can't pull WP:G4 here for that reason, making this deletion attempt null. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The argument is not G4, but G5. Also, no, it wasn't different at all: it was a direct recreation as anyone with admin goggles can tell you. Cullen has added to it, but that doesn't change the fundamental flaws of this article being created for the explicit purpose of advertising. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * G5 says: "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others." I have made seven edits to the article, adding significant new content and removing unreferenced content. G5 is now irrelevant to this debate. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:07, 11 March 2018 (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.