Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aru (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aru (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)

Fails WP:NCORP, only references are food reviews. WWGB (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. WWGB (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Solely reviews isn't necessarily a problem when the subject is a restaurant; solely local reviews is what IMO we want to avoid. The Herald Sun is behind a paywall for me, but I'll AGF that at least one of the two is local sigcov, so that's one. The Age is sigcov, again local, definitely independent and reliable, so that's two. The Gourmet Traveller piece represents sigcov outside the local area. Unless there's some reason to believe GT is not rs/not independent, I think that gets it over the hump. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS, we need a RS that "describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products". I think at least one of these (the Age) technically meets that guideline so I am reluctantly a keep. But I personally don't see why Wikipedia needs an article on every restaurant that has ever had a professional food critic come through the doors, so I sympathize with the urge to delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage outside of geographic area where is it located. Needs more than a couple of food reviews and foodie based sources to give it notability. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:AUD part of WP:NCORP, and potentially WP:NOTTRAVEL. SportingFlyer T·C 20:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Ajf773. Needs more and wider coverage than a few food reviews. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not cut and dried, but suggest that The Age and Herald Sun do not constitute regional coverage when considering the review's intended audience, and therefore fails WP:AUD. While GT is not local it is an inclusive publication, therefore Aru’s presence does not necessarily indicate notability. Beyond that, I don’t accept that a food review goes beyond a 'trivial' mention as per WP:SIRS. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinifex&Sand, what's an inclusive publication? Valereee (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An 'inclusive' publication is one in which inclusion is not based on merit or noteworthiness, but rather a desire to include all relevent entities, in this case, restaurants. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- source analysis:

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Age			✔ Yes
Herald Sun	Looks fishy, some RSN discussion.	Paywalled	✘ No
Gourmet traveller			? Unknown
Overall conclusions	~		~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19:, why was this relisted? Consensus seems clear. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Age decidedly passes WP:AUD as a paper of international interest. The review passes WP:PRODUCTREV. I found the Sydney Morning Herald review on ProQuest and it seems to pass WP:PRODUCTREV as well. Seems to be at least regional AUD if this source is publishing a review for a Melbourne restaurant. The source seems to be ok for attributed opinions though probably not for BLP, politics, and such. Note that I don't consider the Gourmet Traveller review to be independent as it relies too heavily on the chef.

I personally don't see why Wikipedia needs an article on every restaurant with 2 reviews in national papers, but the third pillar is there for a good reason, and I don't see any clear exclusionary criteria. —siro χ o 04:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the Age a paper of international interest. It is primarily a paper on Melbourne with some national and international coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar I guess I mean it's a paper of record and as such, many non-Australians have actually heard of it. —siro χ o 07:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Age is not in the class of New York Times. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if NCORP is meeting here. Okoslavia (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. The reviews these days are automatic, more clickbait than anything else, to fill the culture section. It fails WP:SIRS at best There is not genuine international coverage here. scope_creep^Talk 10:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with Spinifex re: WP:AUD. The coverage does not demonstrate the restaurant has received interest outside of its home city. JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.