Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yardbird (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 delete. This is not the most resounding delete consensus and even among the editors arguing to delete there is acceptance that some of the sourcing for this article is solid, so I don't think we should hold any prejudice against recreation with better sources. If anyone would like this article recreated in their draft space please just ask.  A  Train talk 08:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yardbird (restaurant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:N, appears to have been written entirely by someone associated with the business UniNoUta (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - It was mostly garbage, but I've taken out the trash. It's a little citation heavy now, but it's not gonna kill anybody. WSJ, NYT, Food & Wine, South China Morning Post, two years voted consecutive top 50 restaurants in all of Asia by a notable magazine. What more could we really ask for?  G M G  talk   19:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete What more could we really ask for? Encyclopedic significance, for a start.  Anmccaff (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per GreenMeansGo. The first reference is a review written by the WSJ, by our definition it is significant.Ifnord (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional COI editing ,  Of the references, #1, the WSJ, seems to be a review  about the restaurant.  #2 is a mention, #3 is a mention within a group article, #4 is within a general article in the NYTimes, but it gives very considerable emphasis to this restaurant; #5 is a promotional entry in a travel guide  #6 is solely about the restaurant in a respectable magazine, $7 is a mention, #8 is a general article  #9 and 10 are an online restaurant guide that is not a RS. This yields 3   good sources, which might enough--the restaurant is apparently significant.
 * but why would any good faith editor include the bad references? Presumably, because they are editing carelessly, and haven't actually read them. The alternative is that they are not editing here in good faith, but for promotional purposes, and are therefore following the practice of most   promotional editors here, and adding whatever they can find.  The matter is greatly clarified by looking at the edit history: the article was written by "Yardbirdhk " and incorrectly accepted from user space, by an  experienced ed. who must have  realized who the contributor was, but apparently didn't check to see that  that most of the references were useless. The rule about WP not being used for advertising is basic policy, and considerations of notability are a secondary guideline. I almost used G11 on this.  DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To give the chance to respond to 's response to them, as well as to give any other editors the chance to weigh in. No strong consensus at this point anyway.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to draft. Clearly notable; clearly spam, and a stub. Additional sources are available. It is possible that a thorough review of all the sources will return only positive things, and if so, we should not punish the reader by denying them information merely because there was nothing negative to say. However, with an entity like this, we should doublecheck all the niceties proposed in one set of sources against the findings of equally independent sources. If it is moved to draft, and the draft can not be substantially improved, then it will go the way of all abandoned drafts. bd2412  T 21:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The only way to end promotional editing, especially promotional paid editing as this is likely to be, is to remove the article. Just as with sockpupetts, nothing else will discourage them. If the subject is notable, a volunteer editor will write an article subsequently. Otherwise, we find ourselves in the position of doing the work, so the guy violating the terms of use can collect the money.  DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alle-effin'-luia. Exactly. Well, one minor caveat: who says this stuff really is notable, in an encyclopedic sense? I don't remember too many restaurants in Americana, Britannica, F&W... Anmccaff (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article's nearly a year old, so the guy (or girl) has already collected the money. So what's the point of deleting and recreating it? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per . I have blocked the creator of this article for violation of WP:CORPNAME.  I've also listed a draft they had in progress for another restaurant: WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yardbirdhk/sandbox. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've also found a Forbes article listing it among Hong Kong's "6 Must-Try Restaurants" and a Globe and Mail article about its founder. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * that Forbes article is already there, as #3. I discussed it above. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added that Forbes source, so where exactly did you discuss it? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:DEL4 (in keeping with DGG's emphasis). Only the lead 2 sentences are non-promotional. If someone wants to create a non-promotional article about this potentially notable establishment, they should go through AfC.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per .Forbes article only mentions this restaurant is not about the restaurant now every restaurant merely mentioned in Forbes cannot have an articlePharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2017 (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.