Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia Dairy Company

Australia Dairy Company

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

small restaurant with only very local significance and local references DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of restaurants in Hong Kong. Not finding enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify a standalone article, but content is verifiable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of restaurants in Hong Kong. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This topic is clearly notable, and it does not fail WP:GNG. This restaurant has become tourist attraction in Hong Kong, renowned by Hong Kong residents for its service. Having only 'local' significance and references is not a reason to delete an article. Remember that English is an official language in Hong Kong. This article should not be deleted. Regards, Sovereign /^Sentinel 10:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 146.199.67.6 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sure why a rather new-looking IP is relisting, but okay) Weak merge Coverage is predominantly travel guides ([1][2] and all of GBooks hits), and most of those currently used in line is arguably no RS (i.e. no other wikis, no blogs). Other sources (e.g. [3]) are very much exclusive to § Controversy, which might constitute WP:COATRACK for Hong Kong–Mainland conflict, or just WP:UNDUE 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, I relisted to allow further discussion by more participants to determine consensus. --146.198.28.207 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC) ^{(formerly 146.199*)}[reply]

Speedy Keep - Being "small" and "local" are not valid reasons for deletion. STSC (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources not yet used in the article. CNNGo (about pg here; became CNN Travel) covered it,[4] as part of their 'Best Eats Awards'. Time Out (HK) did a short bit on it [5] like USA Today‎ [6] did in a similar roundup. Travelguides like Marriott's,[7] GuidePal,[8] MetropolAsia (?)[9] do refer to it, as an institution or place to visit, but there are other sources.
NewsBank shows significant length print media coverage – the South China Morning Post,[10] as well as coverage in Singapore and Australia newspapers the Straits Times and Gold Coast Bulletin.

I do want to add that blogs can be RSs. For example, 'TastyTreats' [11], whose About page shows it's run by a journalist of the food & drink section of Time Out London mag, would (arguably) come under WP:SPS's "self-published expert sources". Taking a couple of others, OpenRice (which The Globe and Mail suggest is[12] well regarded) awarded them top something or other, and The Culture-ist[13] looks to have at least some editorial oversight. Anyway, there is some lengthier sourcing, even if The New York Times style mag one is just a paragraph[14]. –146.198.28.207 (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @NorAm & Wkology – would you mind taking another glance, see if say the SCMP and maybe one or two of the others push it over the notability threshold for you?