Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public houses and restaurants in Montevideo


 * 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. As has been noted, this is a bit of a mess at this point. The article has been repeatedly moved, its scope and purpose changed as well. On top of that there is a level of personal acrimony between experienced Wikipedians who ought to know better that is frankly disgraceful. If you think I'm referring to you in that statement then you are probably right and you should be ashamed of yourselves. In any event, discussion can and should continue on the article's talk page regarding the proper title and scope of this article, but on the whole the arguments to keep are just barely stronger than the arguments to delete. In light of all the moving that has already gone on it should not be moved again without a formal move request and a week or so of discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Public houses and restaurants in Montevideo

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Note During the AfD the article has been moved to Cuisine of Montevideo.
 * Note During the AfD the article has been moved to Cuisine of Montevideo.

Article was created as Shannon Irish Pub but was moved to the current title after two independent editors questioned its notability. The renaming was clearly just a move to dump the information about the Shannon Pub to a location that more probably notable, but which didn't actually get an article. The article then is a coatrack for hanging nonnotable information that is not notable enough to have stand alone articles. ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. An obvious (and lazy) coatrack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep the article is useful for building up Montevideo topics. No matter how it started, the work done is developing Montevideo topics, not creating coatracks for nonnotable articles. Please take a look in my talk page and in Dr.Blofeld's to notice that we are both working hard for this end. Hoverfish Talk 17:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing the comments of Dazedbythebell below, I agree with Rename as well. Hoverfish Talk 19:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing the notability here. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you going to delete all Category:Restaurants by city articles from Wikipedia or is there a bias against Montevideo in particular? Hoverfish Talk 17:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename Hoverfish has a point that there is a catogory for Restaurants by city. I suggest the site be renamed Restaurants in Montevideo and take the emphasis off of a single pub. I also suggest eliminating the sub-heading of public houses (Pubs). A famous pub qualifies as a restaurant. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PLease note that the idea is not to dump one article as a rename. It was the start of a productive article, productivity is something which the nominator knows nothing about, otherwise he'd have waited for me to write it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: If we already have a category of (notable) restaurants by city, let's apply the same measure here too and keep the article. If you delete it under the premise given by Jamie, let's be consistent with our actions and delete the other articles too. Both Hoverfish and Dr. Blofeld have been working hard in Montevideo-related topics. --Góngora (Talk) 17:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MERCY and WP:ALLORNOTHING are not reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Suffering from some serious heartburn right now so I will promise to develop this article fully later or tomorrow and will make it encyclopedic and not a travel guide. The nominator may have had a point about the individual pub struggling to exist in its own right but a general article writing about the best public houses and restaurants in a capital city is productive I think. This nomination seems to be a WP:POINT issue over notbaility taggin as the nominator has also AFDd Marjan Bojadziev. I will expand this fully tomorrow making it above a "travel guide" much like Public houses and inns in Grantham, only this is more notable as this is a capital city.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also started Irish Uruguayan with the pub located within it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment we have lots of categories "Restaurants in XXX" but only one article, Restaurants in Namibia, which is a redirect to Namibian cuisine. The categories contain entries for individual restaurants which are presumably individually notable.  An article "Restaurants in Montevideo" would be about the concept, or economy, or history, or philosophy, or whatever of the restaurant industry in Montevideo, not about a handful of individually non-notable eateries.  An article of the latter nature could be "List of restaurants in Montevideo", and so far we do not habe any article "Lists of restaurants in XXX".  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine of Montevideo is more encyclopedic. The nominator can think what he likes of me and my work but the Irish Uruguayan and Cuisine of Montevideo articles will always meet encyclopedic guidelines. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnotable and unencyclopedic topic. Mathsci (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PLEASE DO NOT MOVE this article around. It is impossible to hold a sensible discussion about the notability of a topic if the topic changes under our feet.  I really don't want to have to study the article history to try and work out whether Mathsci, for example, is talking about the notability of the same topic as me.  Changing the topic under discussion is frankly disruptive.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Changing the topic under discussion is frankly disruptive." Good grief that's rather extreme. The article continues to be what this AFD was started for and has now found a more suitable name. Also you have zilch right to order other editors what to do so please refrain from doing so.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not an order, a request -- the clue is in the word PLEASE. As to disruption: I explained that it has become impossible to construe perfectly sensible comments like Mathsci's which just say "topic" if we don't know what the topic is or was when he wrote.  If that's not disrupting the discussion I don't know what is.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not start another article with the Cuisine of X? Hoverfish Talk 21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting Guide to deletion: Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the AfD page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing admin). It is not stated that it is disruptive. Hoverfish Talk 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that all this is confusing and it is also true for me that the whole issue has disrupted my hours of work in Wikipedia, having to run to look up rules and regulations and other notable (or not) pubs and restaurants all over the world, when the only thing that was in stake was the notability of a single pub. In a way, however, having moved to twice, the pub issue has been eliminated. There is not going to be an article about Shannon Pub in Montevideo and there has already started an effort that addresses the concerns of the nomination. At least, I am trying to look at it in a positive way. Hoverfish Talk 22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * People generally poorly visualise how an article could look with a revamp and some hard work. this article and Irish Uruguayans in my view are suitable encyclopedia entries and cover areas which make wikipedia more valuable as a resource. I've produced three good articles this evening Cuisine of Montevideo, Irish Uruguayans and Marjan Bojadziev. I have not heard a single word of thanks or positivity (except from Hoverfish and Gongora) except abuse and people calling me disruptive or "uncivil" reports. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you were more civil and created fewer but better articles you would have a different experience. Try it.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't make any difference. The Shannon pub article was a start class article yet you persisted on tagging it for notability. Rather its your own idea of what should be included in the encyclopedia and a pub is not one of them. I create plenty of good articles thankyou very much which is why I have over 60 GAs. It is always the non contributors who don't care about wikipedia who attack the edits of others so it is clear to me why you have done so.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I was one of the editors who tagged the pub article as possibly unnotable, I agree that Cuisine of Montevideo definitely has a more encyclopedic scope and can be greatly improved. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - per above. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, now that the title and scope have changed mid discussion, it's a different matter; an article on the "Cuisine of Montevideo" is certainly reasonable. However, I still think the section on the Shannon Irish Pub has some WP:WEIGHT issues in the context of the new title. On the other hand, I think a paragraph is fine within the context of the Irish Uruguayan (minus the infobox, which was excessive for a small subtopic within the article).  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the article as moved. I'm not going to repeat some of the rationales noted above. Clearly sensible, this is in line with other articles in the category.  I did not know they had such a unique cuisine, but I learn something new every day. Our core readership would probably like to find such an article here. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as Cuisine of Montevideo, the case has been made that this is a notable topic. The Irish pub is now a content issue within that.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per WP:NOTGUIDE:"Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in [...] culinary guides [...] Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead." RacconishTk 19:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So we should delete every entire Cuisine of.. article on wikipedia and articles on food like Peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich because wikipedia is not a culinary guide?♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Found one reference book specific to Montevideo. Others may contain supporting info. Here's your chance, good luck! Trilliumz (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: appears to be a tortuously-created (via several tenuously-related titles) WP:CFORK of Uruguayan cuisine and whatever other cuisines happen to be represented by restaurants in Montevideo (Japanese cuisine, Fast food, etc), combined with WP:NOTGUIDE restaurant guide information. No non-overlapping notability (nor really a coherent topic -- as it covers several, unrelated, cuisines, rather than any single cuisine that does not already have an article). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a valid rationale. Are you saying we should not have regional articles like Cuisine of Kerala and Cuisine of Sikkim because they are a "fork". Regional cuisines are notable and your argument that "nor really a coherent topic -- as it covers several, unrelated, cuisines" has completely failed to understand why this is important precisely because of this, that the cuisine of Montevideo demonstrates influences which are reflective of its past history and culture and how the modern landscape of the capital city has been formed through a fusion of different culinary influences. Sure, Uruguayans tend to love dishes with beef and other meat but the influences of immigrants are evident.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh please -- this is simply a bunch of nomadic material in search of a topic. The comparison to "Cuisine of Kerala and Cuisine of Sikkim" utterly spurious. This is NOT a legitimate regional cuisine variant, but rather a grab-bag of material on cuisineS (plural!) that happen to be served in the Public houses and restaurants in Montevideo. "This is important precisely because" Dr. Blofeld desperately wants to find a topic that he can find even a half-baked excuse for keeping this material under. (i) You have failed to establish that a distinguishable 'Cuisine of Montevideo' exists (separate from the Uruguayan cuisine). (ii) You have failed to present information on that purported topic (as opposed to the Cuisines that happen to be served in the public houses and restaurants in Montevideo). I call WP:DEADHORSE on this wandering-material-in-search-of-a-notable-topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. To my knowledge Montevideo has certain dishes which are unique to the city and are not widely eaten across the country to cater for international tastes, even if many of them are popular throughout, testament to the needs of culturally diverse city population. I am not an expert in this subject but I am certain if proper research was done it would provide a more than adequate coverage of cuisine itself. Besides why the hell shouldn't we have a single article about restaurants in a capital city when we have 150 articles on restaurants in New York City alone. Is it possible, just possible that the top restaurants in any capital city might be notable enough for coverage on wikipedia? Can't you see the systematic bias in that we have 150 articles on New York restaurants but you won't permit mention of a few of the top Uruguayan restaurants? LOL just look at Mo Gridder's!!! Regardless of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the restaurants mentioned in the article should have articles in their own right. Combined they are clearly notable. If you are going to argue WP:NOTGUIDE restaurant guide then I want to see you AFD every single restaurant article on wikipedia because we are not a restaurant guide.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're admitting that Cuisine of Montevideo is essentially a WP:COATRACK for Public houses and restaurants in Montevideo? If the restaurants are individually notable, then start articles on them -- in the exact same way as Category:Restaurants in New York City has for each of those restaurants, instead of this coatracked guidebook. Also your claim of "dishes which are unique to the city" appears to be unsupported/contradicted by the article, which simply states that "the cuisine served in the city is similar to that consumed in the country as a whole". The WP:DEADHORSE shows no sign of a miraculous resurrection. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh' Did you really not look into how this article came about? It started as an individual article on pub restaurant which kept having a notability tag slapped on it dspite it have at least 7 book sources and being a start class.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It started as a two sentencestub with only a single reference when it was notability tagged. After which you've kept on bouncing it around from one title to another, with apparently only minimal consideration of whether the existing material was on-topic for the new title, let alone whether the new topic met Wikipedia standards. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Here.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "cuisine" generally denotes a distinct culinary tradition and the article clearly states that there is no such culinary tradition of Montevideo distinct from general cuisine of Uruguay. The article you are writing is actually about "Dining in Montevideo" or "Restaurants in Montevideo" - the title is misleading. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, either of those title would be more suitable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * However we don't have any other articles with titles similar to those...·Maunus· ƛ · 14:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that (i) the article had a title quite similar to these proposals when the AfD started -- before you changed it & (ii) you would need to explain how such a topic would avoid WP:NOTGUIDE, being a mere guide to dining in said restaurants. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article does discuss how the cuisine in Montevideo is different from that in the country in general,"However, given the influx of immigrants and tourists into the capital over the decades and centuries, a range of cultural culinary influences can be found in the city. In recent years the number of restaurants and diversity of cuisine has increased considerably," with a source for that particular point.    DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely you can see that that only means that there are other (foreign) cuisines present in Montevideo (as is the case in any world capital) - not that Montevideo has its own particular tradition of cuisine.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As it stands, the article is a.) useful, and b.) comprehensive.  I see the point about other national cuisines being covered, but don't necessarily agree; I think it's important, within a discussion of "cuisine", to describe what other foods are available beyond what's considered traditional.  "Cuisine" of necessity must also cover "dining". -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:PLENTY not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename. Some cities do have food different than the rest of their nation.  So perhaps Montevideo cuisine is significantly different than the rest of Uruguayan cuisine.  Can we find anywhere that proves it has things there that aren't in the rest of its nation though?  This article isn't just about the cuisine.  Perhaps have it renamed to List of Restaurants in Montevideo and list all the notable restaurants there, that have references to back up the claim of notability.  Or an article named Montevideo restaurants could include a list of notable restaurants as well as any unique food items of that city.   D r e a m Focus  06:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, all cuisine articles follow a specific naming conviction.


 * Montevideo cuisine would be more appropriate than Cuisine of Montevideo, if it decided to have an article about just the cuisine of that city.  D r e a m Focus  07:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The issue seems to me to be whether Cuisine of Montevideo (or possibly Montevideo cuisine) is a notable topic. If not, then delete.  If so, then keep and address the content issues in the normal way.  Several contributors to the discussion seem to want to delete because they don't like the content.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anybody presented any WP:RS evidence that a distinct 'Cuisine of Montevideo' exists, distinguishable from Uruguayan cuisine (or imported cuisines), let alone that there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" on it? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: given the recent instability, and ongoing uncertainty, over what this article's topic/title is, it may be appropriate to WP:USERFY it until its main author (and serial renamer) can come up with a non-transient title, and rewrite/prune the material to fit the title, at which point its notability can be determined with something at least vaguely resembling a degree of certainty. Until that happens everybody involved in this utter mess of an AfD (whether in favour of keeping or deleting the article) is hampered by having to aim at a moving target. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. this article is simply a listing of what individual restaurants have and types of food available in Montevideo... would it differ greatly from another large Uruguayuan city. so many arguments to avoid have popped up here such as WP:MERCY, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:ITSUSEFUL none of which add to the case for notability. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Dream Focus. It is not Wikipedia practice to remove an article because of a naming   LibStar, what other large Uruguayan  cities have you in mind?   This is the capital, with about half the total population of the entire country.     DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added 6 sources which help establish the notability of Montevideo's cuisine. The Mercado del Puerto section of the city seems particularly famous for its meats. In fact, the Spanish Wikipedia has a whole article devoted to that market--perhaps a commentary on how much bias there is in the English WP against other cultures. It's also worth noting that the city was the Guinness world record holder for biggest barbecue until very recently... by itself a large testament to the strength of the "carne-culture" of the city. I'm sure there are plenty more sources to be mined but most of them will not be in English. If I find the time, I'd probably be able to add a few Spanish sources as well.  As a final note, I like the new article title much better. It matches other articles like Cuisine of Philadelphia or Cuisine of Allentown, Pennsylvania, excepting the preposition "in" instead of "of". — Code  Hydro  21:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep if a reliable source covers restaurants in Montevideo as a topic, else Merge with Uruguayan cuisine in case that sources aren't deemed enough to establish Montevideo cuisine as an independent topic. Per wp:NNC all this information doesn't require notability to be included in another article, and per wp:PRESERVE the well sourced information in this article should not be deleted. Restaurants like Mercado del puerto that have been reviewed by multiple independent sources can be moved into stand-alone articles under Category:Restaurants in Montevideo. Diego Moya (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2011 (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.