Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Grill


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Park Grill

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article just appeared as a link in numerous articles that are part of the Millennium Park WP:FT. Before discussing at WP:FTQ, the implications of this article to the integrity of the topic, I want to be sure that there is consensus that this is a notable restaurant. It is conceivable that consensus may be to merge this into another of the topic's articles. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink or Delete. Lonely Planet: Chicago says "stop here if you need a pick-me-up" which I don't count as significant, and mentions in the Post and USA Today are equally brief. All the other coverage seems to be local, although in regional Chicago papers (Sun-Times or Tribune).  A small restaurant that has been open less than 10 years and has only minor controversy or attention belongs on a food or business wiki, not an encyclopedia.  By all means add sources, but I don't see any sources yet that satisfy WP:ORG.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I read all the material and footnotes added in the last 24 hours, and haven't seen anything to change my views. The concession issue was news for a few weeks and is minor in terms of Chicago politics.  I will be blunt: the only genuinely encyclopedic thing I read in the article is its great views of the plaza, (good enough to appear in a movie!), which reinforces my view that it should be (and is) a section in the Plaza article.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The concession issue was news for a few weeks..." The concession issue was news for more than 4 years. Chicago Sun-Times broke the story February, 2005. A court decision came down in July, 2009. Neutral, verifiable references from multiple reliable sources included. Hugh (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I checked out all the references given There are either the briefest mention or are press releases type material. Nothing substantial though one can certainly argue that the insubstantial does at least come from a reliable source! So the restaurant is verifiable, but I see nothing to assert notability. Looks very much like a thinly cloaked advert to me.  Now keep, but not particulalry enthusiastic about it.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Looks very much like a thinly cloaked advert to me." I agree on your suspicions of the motives of the original editor(s), but we are supposed to assume good faith, and in any case it's more than that now. Let the owners write about the view & their Kobi beef burger and we can write about how they got a tax-exempt restaurant with free gas, water, and garbage pick-up, and maybe some kind of balance is struck.Hugh (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * True re the improvement. And what it looked like was with the assumption of good faith! changed my !vote. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The sentences about Park Grill in the Millennium Park were already there. Just added the internal links. Lonely Planet: Chicago (as do many of the other sources) also mentions that the outdoor seating for Park Grill becomes the Millennium Park skate rink. So that is not the extent of the mention in Lonely Planet. The Gilfoyle book is a big one that mentions Park Grill several times. Have you guys had a chance to look at it? The lease controversy has been added as well. If the notability of the restaurant in the middle of Millennium Park on which cloud gate sits is in question, then should we have a long look at some of the others under the category of restaurants in Chicago? Being a Chicagoan, the other less notable restaurant entries were what signaled to me that this was an acceptable page. Regardless, this should be (kept..Updated as a result of the Lake House filming) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroothuis (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I nominated this because of what happened with the first incarnation of Schwa (restaurant) at Articles for deletion/Schwa (restaurant). The only other Chicago restaurants I am really familiar with are Rock N Roll McDonald's and Sixteen (Chicago restaurant), of which I am the main editor.  You will note that these articles extensively document notability and rise to the standard of WP:GA as a result.  For local restaurants, it is probably fairly common for international notability to be at issue.  I would suggest greatly expanding this article to be more like the two that I mentioned. Notability might become more clear if you do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

*Keep The story of how the owners of Park Grill got their "lease/concession agreement" in Millennium Park is notable in the context of Chicago politics and contracting in the Richard M. Daley adminstration.Hugh (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It could link to a ton of links to "related venues" (anything on and in Millennium Park and "critical review" articles like Sixteen (Chicago restaurant) does. Was under the assumption that reviews weren't good sources, though. Is that what this needs? I would be willing to add those others over time if necessary. I was honestly thinking the Trump restaurant is a good comp when I started this. Both young restaurants, both attached to major Chicago attractions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroothuis (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I would be willing to add those others over time if necessary". In terms of the article passing here. I would add them ASAP. In terms of not causing WP:CHICAGO to lose its only WP:FT, I would also encourage you to pursue beefing the article up towards WP:GA in a manner similar to the other articles I have mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to Articles for deletion/Schwa (restaurant) where you said "Is this restaurant mentioned in tour books about the city. I think that is probably were encyclopedic merit would be established. Alternatively, has any pop culture relevance been established. I.E., has a major movie ever had a scene that has been filmed at the restaurant." With the Lake House (film) shoot, this clearly satisfies your threshold at this point, no? Hope you're willing to reconsider your vote! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroothuis (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the sources included in the article amount to significant coverage in multiple local sources and mentions in other reliable sources geared towards broader audiences. Because the subject of the article is a restaurant in one location alone, I think the general notability guideline is met; WP:COMPANY might be met as well. I see how this is borderline in some ways – to quote the latter guideline, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." However, I think the combination of substantial coverage in local sources and any sort of attention at all from national sources, even if brief, can satisfy the guideline. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I want to point out the new references to filming of The Lake House (film) at Park Grill and the references to the property tax disputes were added at this point.Agroothuis (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything you need to know about how the City That Works works can be learned by understanding the Park Grill. The Park Grill is every bit as notable a monument to Chicago as the Bean on the roof.Hugh (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Everything you need to know" is why I said that it is minor. Stories like this have come out of Chicago several times a year for perhaps the last 50 years.  If many contracts from every city agency are awarded in controversial circumstances, then it is news, but not encyclopedic.  This is worth of the order of a million dollars a year to the Park District, which has an annual budget of $390 million.  This is why media outside Illinois does not take any notice, and Wikipedia shouldn't either, in my opinion.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "media outside Illinois" The Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, Crain's Chicago Business, NBC Chicago are regional media. Hugh (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Stories like this have come out of Chicago several times a year for perhaps the last 50 years." WP:ALLORNOTHING Are you arguing the nothing side wrt contracting in Chicago? Hugh (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. I am arguing for the general topic of contracting in that city to be covered, and that we omit articles on minor examples.  Perhaps you will permit me to be even more blunt: we document motor vehicle accidents, but we don't, and shouldn't, cover every single one that is in the city newspapers, even when a driver gets a prison term.  So yes, the Park Grill contract should get a mention in an article about the Park District, and perhaps the one about the Plaza.  But Park Grill should be a redirect to its section in the Plaza article.  I appreciate the contract section that you and Off2riorob created - it is a good piece - but its level of detail would fit far better at Wikinews (a website that I love) and not here on Wikipedia.  All of the new sources are local, notwithstanding the importance of the Sun-Times and the Tribune.  I remain unconvinced of notability to Wikipedia's standard. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Stories like this have come out of Chicago several times a year for perhaps the last 50 years." Please consider joining WP:CHICAGO. We could use more people with the perspective and insight that comes from a commitment to keeping up with the news out of Chicago. One need not reside in Chicago to join. Hugh (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I am arguing for the general topic of contracting in that city to be covered, and that we omit articles on minor examples." In your opinion are issues related to contracting in Chicago over or under represented in WP? In my opinion contracting irregularities are a notable aspect of Chicago, currently so under-represented within WP:CHICAGO articles generally as to violate NPOV. Obviously we are not a booster site or a tourism guide. Which in your opinion are the major examples? Hugh (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I am arguing ... that we omit articles on minor examples." Are you arguing the the Park Grill story is a minor contracting scandal example in Chicago? Very few contracting scandals in Chicago elicit any response from the Daley administration, but Daley himself addressed this on multiple occasions. The City Law Dept. responded in writing. The County Assessor got involved. No other Daley administration contracting dispute advanced to the appellate courts. I could add more neutral, verifiable, reliable references; would that help in your assessment of the notability of this story? Hugh (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The contract didn't go to court, only the property tax. My opinion on its meeting the notability guidelines will be changed if I see a full article in a national paper or magazine.  However, I confess that my recommendation to delete won't change unless something dramatic happens, like a Michelin star, multiple resignations, early termination of the contract, or a prosecution.  I find nothing compelling in the fact that it has a great view of an interesting (and notable) sculpture, shares territory with an important (and interesting) ice rink, or was once mentioned in statement by the Mayor. Sorry. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The contract didn't go to court, only the property tax." The contract was central to the litigation; a judge was asked to make a determination as to whether the contract was a lease or license. Hugh (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I find nothing compelling in the fact that it has a great view of an interesting (and notable) sculpture, shares territory with an important (and interesting) ice rink, or was once mentioned in statement by the Mayor." I agree, but the restaurant was not just mentioned once, it discussed by the Mayor in several press conferences (I could add a reference for each, would that help?) and covered in the press over a course of years (but I repeat myself). BTW there is no view of any sculpture from the restaurant (the "bean" is on the roof). Hugh (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete in its current state as of 2010-03-20. This restaurant is notable largely for the extraordinary relationship between the contractor and awardee and for the backgrounds of the litany of familiar names among the owners and investors. If my fellow editors will not permit these aspects of notability, I vote delete. As currently written up the appropriate treatment of the Park Grill is an approx. one sentence mention in the Millennium Park or McCormick Rink articles. Any number of other restaurants in Chicago are more notable for their food or views. Rather than argue here I plan to be bold and edit the article to improve its notability but should a decision be reached in the mean time please put me down for delete. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The revamped article is beginning to clarify notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever is done to this article, it needs a severe POV-ectomy, which I've only scratched the surface of. I've removed terms like "mobbed up" and "ex-con" which have no bearing on the article itself.  Woogee (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "mobbed up" and "ex-con" were taken directly from the references.Hugh (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding titillating tabloid expressions from low grade citations is not policy.Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "titillating tabloid expressions" Can you please be more specific? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "low grade citations" Can you please be more specific? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fair point about the POV. You should read the court case for a more straightforward version of some of the events. Less prone to sensationalism and more accurate with framing, especially of the legal issues in the property tax dispute. The "mobbed up" references, etc. if actually used in those articles, show that the Sun-Times circa 2005 (relied on very, very heavily for the Clout Cafe section) may have been hard after a scoop on this one and may have been pushing the clout angle hard. Not that it's not a legit story, but the way it's framed and what is emphasized may need some thought. Some citations are needed for some statements, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.142.135 (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The section relies on multiple neutral, reliable, verifiable sources including the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Reader, Crain's Chicago Business, NBC Chicago, court records, and commentary on the court record from a legal commentary website. Signing, Hugh (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a degree of attack article here, I am not sure why or what but someone doesn't like something about it, if editors want to keep it they should consider it needs and should be trimmed back a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "There appears to be a degree of attack article here, I am not sure why or what..." Can you please be more specific? Thanks! Hugh (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reminder: The topic of this page is notability, on which a consensus has developed; the article has a talk page.Hugh (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment- Sorry you are correct there, I have removed the content that I had issues with and am happier with it now, I am neutral about merge or keep. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "am happier with it now" How is this relevant? Hugh (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (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.