Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masa (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 keep. — Kurykh  23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Masa (restaurant)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. I just don't think this is noteable, failing WP:NOTE. It includes petty infomation about the head chef's best marathon times and other recreational activities. It was used to film a scene from Ugly Betty and a website put it in it's top 50 places to eat once. Hardly note-worthy. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I haven't been to New York for years, but I've heard of this restaurant. It is easily noteworthy. Beorhtric 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I haven't been to New York at all and I've never heard of it! So what? This is, according to the article, a very small restaurant that has been reviewed in the NY Times. Newspaper reviews of restaurants do not confer notability - thousands and thousands of restaurants are reviewed every year, in what are basically promo pieces. A review is not the same as being 'news', and judging by the article, if the chef's non-restaurant activities are removed, there's little left to say about this one.. Emeraude 12:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote this article.  It was featured on the did you know section of the main wiki page, it is consistently rated as one of the top restaurants in the world and the chef is also one of the best in the world.  And Emeraude, your not having heard of it is not a criteria to keep or delete.  Postcard Cathy 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Neither is Beorhtric's having heard of it. Get the point? Emeraude 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't get the point. The fact that someone who hasn't been in NYC for years has heard of the restaurant means that it is notable, as far as I am concerned. BTW Steve, I just looked at the list of articles you contributed to - I literally haven't heard of about 98% of the topics you have written about.  Would you see it as a legit reason for me to say they should be deleted because I haven't heard of it?  NO  yeah  I am answering for you.  Just because any wiki editor hasn't heard of something is not a legit reason to delete something.  You look at each article and rate the topic on it's own merits - whether you have heard of it or not.  Cathy
 * I couldn't agree more with your last point. But please read more carefully what I wrote. The fact that Beorhtric has heard of it does not make it notable, any more than the fact that I haven't makes it non-notable. I was being sarcastic. I have nowhere suggested that this article should be deleted because I haven't heard of it - that would be ridiculous. What I did was to point out that just because someone HAS heard of it is, in itself, no reason to keep it! There are hundreds of things I've heard of that are completely non-notable, but I'm not suggesting that any of them deserve articles because I have heard of them. My substantive argument was that the restaurant was non-notable; it seems that in the course of debate other users have provided evidence of notability. So, I've still never heard of it apart from here, but I'm accepting it's notable. However, this has change of view has nothing to do with the fact that Beorhtric has heard of it. Emeraude 09:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am laughing all the way to the bathroom because it is making me pee. The evidence was there all along.  You either missed it or chose to ignore it.


 * Strong Keep True, the restaurant has been reviewed by The New York Times, but it has also been recognized and reported on by multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources, and this article distinguishes this one restaurant from the "thousands and thousands of restaurants [that] are reviewed every year". This article clearly establishes notability under the Notability guideline. Alansohn 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, if you know anything about the NY Times reviewers - no matter what they review - they are extremely picky!   To get such a good review from them is almost as rare as the Michelin stars!
 * Are you saying it has Michelin stars? Why is this not mentioned in the article? Emeraude 16:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd argue that receiving two stars in the Michelin Guide (even though I have issue with some of their methods and ratings overall) is clear evidence of notability. JavaTenor 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep w/Re-Write The restaurant itself seems notable enough for inclusion, but the article is somewhat spammy.   Pats Sox Princess  22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This version was the one that made it on to the Did you know? section (minus the added Ugly Betty comment). My question to you: Would htey put a spammy article there?


 * Keep Small but high profile Manhattan restaurant. Written about by multiple secondary sources and the T+L endorsement is very significant. --Oakshade 16:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The restaurant is unique and notable due to its unusual business practices (no menu, extremely difficult to get a table, etc.) and its presence in a world-famous building. The Times article in the references section isn't a conventional review so much as a profile of the restaurant and the chef -- the independent press coverage that WP:N looks for. Needs some work, but that's not a reason to delete. Slic e NYC (Talk) 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per other comments, the restaurant is worthy of encyclopedic coverage and WP:NOTE is easily satisfied here. RFerreira 01:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that a re-write may be appropriate, but Chef Masa's contribution to US cuisine is notable, and some reference to his work and career should be part of Wikipedia.
 * 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.