Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe's Shanghai


 * 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. There's a consensus, rooted in policy (unlike the keep votes), to delete the article. If we're counting, which we don't, it was 10-7 delete, which is fairly close. However, policy trumps 'I like it'. Proto :: type  13:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe's Shanghai


Nomination for deletion I marked this for speedy deletion as an advert and it was contested by another editor who called for a stay of execution on account that the restaurant had been mentioned by a couple of blogs. Anyway, delete as subject is not an encyclopedically notable restaurant, and no claims are made for notability in the article. I've eaten food from this restaurant many times - its relatively decent Chinese food by Manhattan standards (native Manhattanites - get a grip, your average-joe-level Chinese food, while not as sketchy as Boston's "Combat Zone", is generally not great.), and the restaurant has something of a local reputation for its Xiao Long Bao soup dumplings (again, relatively decent by Manhattan standards given most places around there will serve you soggy lumps of dough). But Xiao Long Bao soup dumplings are widespread in NYC and indeed other US cities (not to mention uh, actual Chinese cities). Article consists of listing of 2 locations of the restaurant plus link to a review on a blog, plus a link to the official restaurant website. Remaining 50% of article given over to description of Xiao Long Bao dumplings. Bah, try them at Din Tai Fung (an internationally noted restaurant for Xiao Long Bao dumplings) in California/Taiwan/China/Japan/Singapore instead. Bwithh 05:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete My hometown of Decatur, Illinois has a chain of a few Mexican Restaurants, are we going to give them articles too? Restaurants need to be really notable to get an article; we can't possibly have articles for every restaurant out there, essentially free advertising.  Furthermore, getting mentioned in blogs doesn't cut it: if it did, any editor could make a blog, or two, or three then plug whatever restaurant he liked on those blogs and use it to establish notability.  We certainly don't need to go down that path.  --The Way 06:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. Borderline WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a collection of restaurant reviews. Completely unverifiable, weasel words galore. Now let's wait for the inclusionists to point out that none of us are able to determine what notable is and make up their own policies. MartinDK 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As advertisement.  Spinach Dip 09:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Joe's Shanghai has won several awards which are published in NY Times, this article needs to ascert that, also states that Joe's Shanghai, one of the original dumpling purveyors. It has been stated as the "best" xiaolongbao in New York.  Valoem   talk  09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that it necessarily adds any encyclopedic notability even if verified, but can you cite the new york times links that show these awards? by the way, the thefoodsection.com link you refer to above is a weblog run by one person. If you want to swap tips on where to find the "best" restaurant food in town, go to www.chowhound.com or something, not wikipedia Bwithh 09:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Best I can make out from the restaurant website is that in 2005, it was a nominee for best chinese restaurant in New York in a reader poll for AOL City Guide. *shrug* Bwithh 10:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, looks like a notable restaurant with NY Times mentioning it, but I doubt its notability overall and whether it is verifiable. More of an ad than an article, so this is not articles we want here on the encyclopedia. --Ter e nce Ong (C 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Folantin 13:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a place for advertising and virtually no notability is asserted. Moreschi 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It does have a few minor claims to notability. It was named as the top spot in New York's Chinatown by Fortune in 1998 (Lieber, Ronald B. "Top Spots In Chinatowns". Fortune. 2 February 1998. p. 28), and it was listed by USA Today with Lespinasse as one the places NY food critics would send their friends (Shriver, Jerry. "Where local critics send their friends". USA Today. 30 August 1996. p. 6D). Thus, Joe's has received coverage (albeit brief) in a couple of national publications.  Also, during the 2003 World Series Michael Bloomberg promised to send Boston mayor Thomas Minino two dozen dumplings from Joe's Shanghia if the Red Sox won the championship (Agence France Presse. "New York, Boston mayors double bets on who will win series pennant." 15 October 2003). I thought that was kind of interesting; it implies that Joe's is seen as one of New York's trademark local dishes.  In addition, there were 48 total New York Times hits in their online archive to 2001, including a few articles about the restaurant itself (its history, its owner, etc).  I didn't look through all of them, so I'm not sure about the awards claim listed above, but Joe's did appear in a couple of Top Ten Chinese Restaurant lists, FWIW. Overall, I think this article has some potential.  If any local New Yorkers want to take a crack at it, go ahead. Zagalejo 15:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked through the hits in the NYTimes archive since 1981. Almost all of these hits are 1) restaurant reviews 2) articles about chinatown or chinese restaurants in new york which mention joe's shanghai amongst other restaurants. the only possibly "news" article about joe's shanghai specifically I can find is a single paragraph local news item about a new branch opening in Queens. Bwithh 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The restaurant is notable because of the above mentioned press coverage (which clearly stands out more than your mundane Chinese restaurant). Also, four of their locations in NYC have been rated favorably with extensive reviews on Citysearch. --Howrealisreal 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those "extensive reviews" on citysearch are reviews and scores generated by reader reviews i.e. anyone can review and score the restaurants Bwithh 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Press coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability . Apparently we're not even talking about news coverage (apart from trivial mention in a baseball stunt) here either, but restaurant reviews and articles from the dining section. Thousands and thousands of restaurants get good reviews with glowing language about how special a particular dish is or how unusual blahblahblah is (that's part of the fun of reading restaurant reviews) - are we to have articles on each of them as well as every resturant which gets a passing mention in a travel/dining article? (btw, NYTimes gives Joe's Shanghai 2 out of 4 stars (a very good rating but not exceptional at all...). Bwithh 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The purpose of pointing out the Citysearch page is to show that there is a large cult following and deep admiration for this restaurant. It's not quite as easy as you make it seem to get listed on Citysearch and then get a good rating and review among the superfluous amount of places to eat in New York City. Clearly, Joe's stands out. Here's a "real" restaurant review (by what you say) in The New York Times from April 1996. Additionally, three of their locations are reviewed and rated in New York magazine, while a travel article in The Independent from the U.K. makes a point of mentioning how good the place is. This restaurant was also rated "best chinese" in 1998 by Time Out New York. This obviously shows more notability than some local Chinese food joint. Notability (companies and corporations) states "The company has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself... [including] published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles" for inclusion. --Howrealisreal 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Restaurants typically get reviewed in the local newspaper. Yes, The New York Times is a major paper, but it does serve New York and this is a New York restaurant.  The New York Times would be a significant source of notability in most cases, but for New York locales themselves it is less so.  The Denver Post and other Denver papers often review bars and restaurants in town, but I'm in no rush to give them all articles.  --The Way 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia guidelines say nothing about what you just said. The New York Times is an international paper, that although may cover local things, is read and circulated widely outside of the city. To say that New York things published in the Times have no merit since "it's local news" is baseless. Quite the opposite, New York things and events gain international recognition because they are published in the paper. Furthermore, relating to your argument, then why is The Independent (a U.K. paper) writing about how great Joe's Shanghai is? You can't have it both ways. I don't understand your argument. --Howrealisreal 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Independent (UK) mentions it in a TRAVEL article about new york. The writer probably looked at existing travel guides or the dining articles in the NYTimes for ideas. Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide. There are many many local interest items in the New York Times every day which have no interest beyond the local area whatsoever e.g. crime incident reports, talk of the town, local government stories, local human interest stories etc etc etc. Bwithh 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh. So now you know what the author of the Independent article was thinking at the time of writing it? You're making very baseless claims here without anything but your subjective feelings to support them. Did you even read that article? The author actually writes about Joe's because he and his lady feel it is a noteworthy stop because of their food, from personal experience. Again, to reiterate, out of all the places to get dumplings in NYC, the article chooses Joe's as the best, and NOTABLE enough to suggested it to the entire Independent paper readership. This has NOTHING to do with Wikipedia being a tourist guide. This article is not saying "come to New York City for Joe's dumplings", it's just recording the fact that this restaurant has been distinguished from the rest because of how good it is. This is not just known on the local level, as Zagalejo and others have pointed out. --Howrealisreal 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say that any restaurant reviewed in the NYT is notable. But I agree that, when looking at the big picture, Joe's Shanghai deserves an article.  In addition to the Independent blurb, I found relevant Lexis-Nexis results from newspapers in Singapore, Boston, and Minnesota.  Lots of non-New Yorkers have heard about this place, and even though most of the articles are restaurant reviews or travel section blurbs, it's pretty clear that the place has made an impact. Zagalejo 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, not every NYT reviewed restaurant deserves an article but this one clearly does. I overhauled the article, adding references. Thanks for your help here. --Howrealisreal 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn restaurants. Eusebeus 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced article about a company, only one review from an online magizine that according to them prints All the news thats fit to eat.. Ok, we can confirm the reviewer liked the food, but that does not establish notability. There are more eateries than we have articles here(millions). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep See reasons above. Also, 26,100 Google hits. I went back to more than a hundred Google pages and all the results were still referring this restaurant chain. In fact, the Wikipedia entry is fourteenth on the list. Wikipedia has articles with almost zero Google hits and there is no controversy about those. Also, it can't possibly hurt Wikipedia OR its users to keep this article, remember, Wikipedia not having size limitations is one of the core concepts part of it. Keep. --K-UNIT 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper, but the primary overriding concept is that it is an encyclopedia. Google hits showing reviews and people mentioning the restaurant, newspaper coverage, awards etc are not automatic indicators or encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the only indicator of encyclopedic notability is your subjective feelings about a topic. In regard to User:Bwithh . So, things that you personally are okay with can stay, but food institution in New York City that are outside your frame of reference you must crusade against? In particular, I see one of the things on your list is Gardies, a takeaway food joint that doesn't seem to have any references or statements of notability in the article. Double standard maybe? --Howrealisreal 19:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to support a deletion of Gardie's but as I say on my user page, I'm not nominating for personal sentimental reasons *shrug* - the same goes for the lollipop lady who helped me cross the road to school as a kid. I've certainly nominated or been a key arguer for deletion in articles about subjects I've personally liked before e.g.Articles_for_deletion/Zippie_Picnic,Articles_for_deletion/Newtonmas_%28Third_nomination%29. I am not sure where you get the idea that my arguments are based only on subjective feelings from. So sue me if I like to write the occasional afd nomination in a conversational tone. Any more questions from the Inquisition? By the way, I live and work in Manhattan. As I state in my nomination, I have eaten food from or at Joe's Shanghai many times - probably 25-30+ times over the last couple of years, usually including their soup dumplings.  Bwithh 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * KeepMultiple verifiable independent press coverage in major publications. More than enough to satisfy Wikipedia standards for what is notable and encyclopedic. Edison 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "guidelines" not "standards". Even high profile press coverage from major sources not necessarily sufficient for encyclopedic notability e.g. Articles_for_deletion/George_Allen_Smith and its subsequent deletion review which endorsed the deletion Bwithh 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the bottom line here is that this article was nominated because, supposedly, it didn't meet the guidelines for a notable company. There has been some discussion, the article has been improved with multiple sources that satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but the nominator still feels those sources are "not notable enough". Bwithh, you are only one person and you do not constitute Wikipedia consensus. You have nothing to back up your claim that this article should be deleted beside your subjective feelings that hold no weight. --Howrealisreal 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Howrealisreal, you are attempting to undermine my arguments by attacking me as someone who does not frame arguments in terms of policy and acts out of personal whim. I hope in future that you will refrain from misrepresenting other people's arguments with ad hominem criticisms, and from generally being condescending. It's not appropriate. Bwithh 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That looks like a Pokemon argument (sometimes it's used for deletion). Notability of that subject is not equivalent to every other. --Oakshade 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No its not, I was demostrating prior precedent in relation to a policy issue Bwithh
 * That still appears Pokemon hidden in the word "precedent "We deleted x because of ___, therefore y should be deleted for the same reason."  That argument, while it might have been valid for that cited article, is not equivalent to every other. --Oakshade 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me try again - my point here was in relation to a dispute about a policy reading. The claim was made that "Multiple verifiable independent press coverage in major publications" is "more than enough" to satisfy the "standards" for notability. My response was these are guidelines, not standards and that actually, there are cases such as the George Allen Smith case, where "Multiple verifiable independent press coverage in major publications" existed but the article was nevertheless deleted (with deletion endorsed on review). In my response, I make no mention of Joe's Shanghai. It would be an odd comparison in any case, since the prominence of press coverage in the George Allen case greatly outweighs Joe's Shanghai. WP:POKEMON talks about the keep argument that "x should kept because y has been kept". In your exegesis of my comments, you are claiming that I am sneakily using a deletionist twist on the Pokemon test (a novel twist based on your own observations, since it's not covered in WP:POKEMON), in effect arguing that "x should deleted because y should be deleted". I am not - I am saying that (for the umpteenth time), that the assumption that press coverage automatically translates to encyclopedic notability is incorrect, and that here is an example of a case with high profile press coverage which was nevertheless judged unencyclopedic and deleted. Leaving aside the matter of whether a hypothetical deletionist version of a Pokemon test is in fact simply a mirror image equivalence of the Pokemon test,  if I was making some kind of deletionist Pokemon argument, the argument would in effect be saying that all subjects with press coverage should be deleted - this is clearly nonsense. What I have been saying (until I'm blue in the face) is that Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability and in case people think I'm making this up, here's a good example of this point in action. This point is not the same as saying that Media coverage shows lack of encyclopedic notability. What it is doing is calling for a higher level of judgement to be exercised beyond blindly following whatever is in the media. I hope this has clarified things for you.   Bwithh 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the long response, but it still goes back down to comparing the argument to delete on a different article and very different subject. Greg Allen Smith was/is someone who went missing during a cruise at sea and this is an article of a Chinese restaurant chain with a great amount of differences between the two and even the arguments for keeping (there's more than just "this has lots of press coverage" arguments) and deleting. If your argument was actually included in WP:AFDP, then it's valid to cite that argument as such and even in that case it would only cite a precedent, not policy.  Your heavily repeated "Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability..." argument might be a good one, but it is not policy and arguably not even precedent but was just used in the discussion on the decision to delete that specific article.  You even said yourself above "Even high profile press coverage from major sources [is] not necessarily sufficient for encyclopedic notability..." which correctly demonstrates that there are some instances where that might be the case as all articles and arguments for deletion/inclusion are unique.  --Oakshade 04:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just one more thing, I could easily cite the AfD of Jeffrey Ingram as an example of primarily using the "heavy news coverage" argument for reason to keep as that article was kept, as a counter to your argument, but i  know you'd throw WP:POKEMON out. The same could be used in reverse. --Oakshade 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per press coverage above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:V and a notable chain.  --Oakshade 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to say that the article has become even more of an advert since it has been edited since the original nomination - the food section now singles out lion's head meatballs and other dishes for praiseat the restaurant without justification except for restaurant reviews. Yes, I've had their meatballs. They're okay. Bwithh 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bwithh, in regard to your comments, if I have offended you or hurt your feelings then I must apologize. It was not my intention to say anything that could be be interpreted as un-WP:CIVIL. This is business, not personal. But, I also feel that I must defend myself from your charges. I do feel that your arguments are based on personal experiences and lack foundation in Wikipedia policies. Here are some examples: "The [Independent] writer probably looked at existing travel guides or the dining articles in the NYTimes for ideas," (speculation) or "Yes, I've had their meatballs. They're okay" (trying to undermine published works based on your personal opinion). These are just a few examples of subjective arguments that are not verifiable and not based on any guidelines. I'm sorry, but you equally tried to misrepresent my views and sources. Unfortunately, while I have evidence as to why my arguments hold weight, you have nothing to show for yourself besides the fact you think that the place is overrated. You are right, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has standards. This is why what gets put in it must be based on facts traced back to non-trivial published works outside of the subject, and ourselves as editors. If you want to express your personal opinion about why Joe's isn't good, do it in your personal blog instead of trying to destroy information that others find notable and worthwhile to include. I do hope that we meet again (as you put in an earlier version of your comment) and who knows, we may find ourselves on the same side of the argument. This is the best part about Wikipedia. Take care. Respectfully, --Howrealisreal 15:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On more thing: I made some changes to the article acknowledging your claim that it reads like an advertisement. I hope you can see this as a sign of good faith and that I'm willing to compromise. Additionally, I found Joe's in the Best Food Writing 2003 compilation on Google Books, so I cited it for a new "In literature" section as further proof of notability. --Howrealisreal 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What would impress me would be if it was mentioned in a medium not dedicated to mentioning food eateries. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well actually it is mentioned also in Five Flights Up And Other New York Apartment Stories. Chris Madak (who lives or lived above Joe's in Chinatown) talks about how obnoxious it is in the winter when the line to get in backs up his apartment stairs, and one time when a crab in the restaurant's tank got free (by standing on top of a lobster). --Howrealisreal 17:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per WP:LOCAL. --Wizardman 16:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-local coverage = zero. Blatant spam to boot. ~ trialsanderrors 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, not exactly. Have you read the above discussion? The place has gotten press in England and Singapore (do a Lexis Search, or some equivalent).  And I don't think it's *blatant* spam.  It seems to have a pretty strong fan base, so it's conceivable that someone would write an article about it. Zagalejo 02:33, 20 November 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.