Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in London


 * 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   keep. WP:SNOW. As noted by all commenters, the list satisfies guidelines. It is standard practice to limit such lists to only entries that have or merit articles, and whatever susceptibility the list might have to promotional edits is not cause for deletion. postdlf (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

List of restaurants in London

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete Can never be near complete and can only serve as advertisements for selected restaurants Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The list was derived from Category:Restaurants in London, and qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP. It also qualifies for an article per WP:LISTPURP. NorthAmerica1000 18:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. There seems to be no any advertisement. Article is purely in neutral tone and contains list of all main Restaurants in London, plus it clearly qualifies for an alone article as per WP:NOTDUP. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems clear that the consensus is likely to be 'keep' but I wonder if those who support that view are willing to spend the necessary time monitoring this page to decide which are, 'all main Restaurants in London' and on what basis this will be decided. It is clearly to the commercial advantage, in attracting tourists for example, of any restaurateur to have their restaurant in this list so I can see it being a continual commercial battle ground. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Such lists are not required to be complete - they serve as an index to our articles. The topic is notable per WP:LISTN and, as we have a category too, WP:CLN applies. Andrew (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know list cannot be completed ever. But as we said earlier to Martin Hogbin, such lists need not to be complete. The article is quite fine about listed restaurants in London. The promotion is only in the case when it is clear blatant and fall under WP:PROMOTION. But unfortunately, article doesn't falls under this policy in its current form. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 07:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I sympathize with the nominator's concerns, but multiple guidelines explicitly say that these sorts of articles are acceptable.  If the article were nothing but hours of operation, driving instructions, or other promotional content, you might be on to something per WP:NOTGUIDE.  The promotion must be truly blatant to fall afoul of policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone above - Article's fine as it is. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  20:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Where do we stop, how can we decide which restaurants go in here and which do not? It is going to require continuous monitoring, or at least it would if we had any well-defined basis for inclusion.  I see there is currently no List of restaurants in New York,  List of restaurants in Paris, List of restaurants in Rome, List of restaurants in Moscow, List of restaurants in Beijing.  Do we plan to have all all these?  What about a 'List of restaurants in Westerham', should we have that?  Let us stop this craziness before it starts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a list of notable restaurants. That means that each restaurant needs to have an article.  See this article in The Guardian for an example of a list of London restaurants.  That means that it satisfies WP:LISTN.  The Wikipedia article probably does need citations, but that can be easily remedied.  By the way, you're not allowed to vote multiple times.  I have struck out your duplicate vote.  Not that the AfD vote count tool works anymore. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled about why you call my one vote a duplicate so I have reinstated it. If there is another one somewhere, please feel free to strike that one out.


 * I do understand the concept that only restaurants with an article should be in this list; it is exactly the same criterion used for people in List of vegans for example, even though the restaurant criteria for inclusion seem to be rather more arbitrary and variable, as your example shows. The restaurants in your example are not notable in themselves but only because a particular newspaper happened to run an article on budget restaurants in central london/soho. Does that make the expensive restaurants in Chelsea less notable?


 * The problem though is that the commercial value of being in this list is much greater than that of having an article in WP. Clearly, having an article in WP on your restaurant is beneficial but only if people know it exists.  Being in a list like this is much better as the list becomes more of a restaurant guide for visitors to London and every restaurant in town is going to want to be there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop voting multiple times. You get one vote.  Your nomination was that vote.  I suggest you read through WP:AFD and familiarize yourself with the rules.  The relevant guidelines and policies have already been pointed out to you.  I suggest you read them, too.  If you have questions, you can ask in the Teahouse or the Village Pump.  Your arguments amount to "I don't like it".  It's a valid list with clear inclusion criteria, and it fails to be promotional in any sense defined by Wikipedia policy.  I suggest you find a policy-based argument. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might like to read SPIP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2014 (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.