Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moosewood Restaurant (2nd nomination)

Moosewood Restaurant

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I read through this article twice, and I am still not seeing how this restaurant is notable. I read the original nomination for deletion page, and some of the users in the discussion there seem to be saying that the owners published some cookbooks, but, if these are so significant, then why are they not mentioned in the article's summary? I did a quick search and found a NY Times article from 1990, which leads me to believe that it maybe meets WP:GNG. But I'm not sure. I am still seeing people question the significance of this restaurant in the discussion page, so I thought I'd bring it up for another deletion nomination. I'm personally not seeing its significance. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NCORP with (shamelessly copied from last AfD): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. They also (the collective) quite possibly possibly pass WP:NAUTHOR, and are credited with innovations / path breaking in vegetarian cuisine. Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per NYT source and sources by Icewhiz. --MrClog (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cookbooks are easily notable, and the restaurant is, too (e.g. [7],[8],[9],[10]]). Pburka (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think anyone's questioned the restaurant's notability on the talk page since before the previous nomination. Pburka (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable restaurant as per the newspaper sources listed above, and others. Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this restaurant and its cookbooks are, or, at least, were, a big deal.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is self-contradictory, explaining how the topic passes the WP:GNG but "still not seeing how this restaurant is notable". Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think i have cooked from three of their cookbooks, but the first one is the best, don't you think? And the restaurant is awesome. It is a destination worth the trip. --Doncram (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Moosewood Cookbook - Look, I love Moosewood Restaurant. I took the photo which illustrates the article. But I don't see the point of having an article about the restaurant AND an article about the cookbook AND an article about Mollie Katzen. Of the three, it's the cookbook that is notable; it was a best seller, and very influential in its field. The restaurant itself is a moderately popular (if beloved) restaurant in a small city. If it weren't for the cookbooks, nobody outside Ithaca would have heard of the restaurant. There are similar restaurants around the world that do not have Wiki articles. Keep the existing Moosewood Cookbook article, add a section to that about the history and background of the restaurant, and it will be well-served. --Kzirkel (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge – how would this add value to our content? We are not rewarded for cramming as much as possible into the smallest number of pages. Our actual policy is WP:NOTPAPER which indicates that we can use as many pages as we like for such content. People now commonly access Wikipedia using smart phones or smart speakers. For such usage, it's best if the content is delivered in specific, compact pieces rather than as bloated compendia. If we have three different types of subject – a book, a restaurant and a person – then our structural elements such as categories work best if we keep them separate and use links to cross-reference them. In any case, this is quite tangential to the core issue of deletion – this is not a general forum for discussing improvements and the formatting of the page(s). Andrew D. (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant is more significant than almost any restaurant I've been to, where I can think of there being a Wikipedia article. It is world-level/international in significance; people do travel out of their way to get there, and since Ithaca and Cornell University do attract considerable visitation anyhow there are a considerable number of international, national, regional visitors who get to the restaurant each week I am sure. If I recall correctly there is a guestbook which would prove that; most restaurants would not think of having a guestbook but here it makes sense. I agree that a merger wouldn't help. There could be some editing though. As far as I can tell, the restaurant article does not currently link to the Moosewood Cookbook article, and it currently states "The Collective has produced 13 cookbooks over the years, beginning with New Recipes from Moosewood Restaurant".... as if that one is not the first one. Note that the restaurant article is about the restaurant and the collective/publishing company which apparently has 13 works. Probably each of the separate books is not worth an article, I am not sure. A collection of three articles for restaurant/collective, for the Moosewood Cookbook, and for Mollie Katzen as related but quite distinct types of things, categorized correctly, seems about right. --Doncram (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]