942:- I agree with the above sentiments that just having a number of links to be used as sources alone doesn't automatically confer notability, its the actual depth of the coverage within those sources that should be able to show notability. And the majority of the sources found do not really qualify for that. Several of them are downright unusable for establishing notability for this eatery. The sales listing for the building and the report on the opening of another, unrelated restaurant that happens to be owned by the same person, for instance, don't even mention the bar in question. Both may be interesting factoids, but neither establish any sort of notability for the bar. Others, such as the listing in Timeout New York, are just simple business listings, that has absolutely no in depth coverage at all. The rest are pretty much just standard, in some cases very brief, restaurant reviews from various New York centered publications. At least one is not even from a reliable source, that I can see, and is just a blog. These are all just very standard, run of the mill occurances that do nothing to show why this particular bar has any notability.
526:
always come back whenever you feel that you have enough reliable sources. Otherwise, Sorry IMHO this article needs to be deleted immediately. Please also note that
Knowledge is not a business directory. There are sites such as yellowikis for this kind of business listings. So for now it is very difficult to keep the article. Thanks. --
432:: this restaurant has received reviews only in local media. To be sure, because the locality is New York City, the "local sources" have a much greater breadth of readership, but consider if this restaurant had been in Tulsa instead of New York. Would local reviews in the Tulsa newspapers and magazines have counted toward
960:
Certainly not every reference in an article can be used to show notability. If that's the way we wrote articles it would be a sad world. I added a fair number of the recent cites to see what detail I could add to the article, I have not a care that it will be deleted from wikipedia, I'll repost it
721:
Reviews from reliable sources can certainly be used to qualify topic notability, although it is preferable that some of them are from publications with regional or national coverage, as is the case regarding this topic. If the use of reviews wasn't possible, then many
Knowledge articles about books
525:
is not the same for a BLP and for this kind of business listings. So kindly understand the wikipedia policies in this regard. Please add more reliable sources so that we can make sure that the subject is notable not only locally but at least in a region/state. Don't loose heart, if deleted. You can
706:
To Dear NA1K: Being an experienced editor, you know how wiki works and you know what we are exactly trying to say. Please add some more reliable references (Both primary and secondary)(Not just a review. Review cannot be considered as
Primary Source of notability.). Then yes, probably IMHO we can
590:
magazine, both of which cover social aspects of the two cities in which they are based. In either case you are again ascribing the publications notability with the depth of coverage of the subject within the magazine. Just because a publication is notable does not make the subject covered by the
906:, as there are literally hundreds, of drinking establishments within a one-mile radius of this one that have garnered a similar level of coverage. None of the sources are in depth discussions about the establishment itself. My own search turned up only more reviews and routine coverage.
686:
of New York
Magazine. The local news paper may be having nation wide circulation. It may be notable but it does not mean that every word printed on it should be on Knowledge. Further subject, just being published in one or two does make it notable. I think
595:
or does it go into depth and give a broad picture of the subject? In this case we are seeing simple blurbs, reviews and topical coverage that only establishes the verifiability of the subject. Just because it appears in print does not mean it is notable.
691:
is very clear on this. It needs multiple, verifiable and reliable material. Not just a review in one notable magazine. I think we can better close the discussion. Just repeating the point does not make any sense. Thank you. --
169:
204:. Entries in the entertainment guides / restaurant reviews do not indicate any special notability. (Is there a restaurant of any significant size anywhere that doesn't get reviewed by its own hometown media?)
163:
245:
124:
547:
is surely a notable publication, it is still a publication that serves, primarily, its New York City audience, and as such, will publish reviews of local restaurants. This is
267:
223:
97:
92:
101:
289:
129:
84:
654:(To view it, click on the link in menu on the left titled "Demographics/Circulation", then scroll down to the end of the page). While 71% of the magazine's
902:: Non-notable due to lack of depth in coverage. Restauraunt reviews and other routine or local coverage do little to establish notability. Also fails
493:. Per the Knowledge article for the magazine, its 2009 paid and verified circulation was 408,622, with 95.8% of that coming from subscriptions.
782:, which is the daughter task force of The Food and drink WikiProject. And I wasn't discussing food, I was discussing restaurant reviews... --
513:. This magazine is notable for sure. But kindly understand that one or two listings in that news magazine does not make the subject to pass
184:
151:
923:
Any bar/restaurant is going to have multiple reviews published in it's local market. Nothing particularly noteworthy about this one.
842:
827:
562:
447:
211:
17:
490:
source isn't "local coverage" whatsoever. It's a nationally-circulated magazine in the United States. Here's the article link
888:
323:
145:
970:
951:
934:
915:
894:
861:
799:
769:
756:
730:
716:
701:
674:
630:
613:
566:
535:
501:
478:
451:
418:
388:
360:
329:
300:
281:
259:
237:
215:
66:
739:
and its sibling projects do not count reviews as establishing notability, only verifiability – regardless of the source. --
793:
750:
682::Dear fellow editors, we are simply going and taking the topic to some where else. I hope now we are not discussing about
607:
472:
141:
52:. Though there is some disagreement as to the local nature of the sources, there seems a rough consensus to delete per
88:
664:
the magazine is not solely a "local publication" whatsoever, because almost one-third of it's circulation is national
354:
191:
989:
911:
903:
80:
72:
40:
402:
582:, the former is a local publication while the latter is a national publication with a much broader readership.
822:
521:) and wider coverage shall be necessary. We needs to be extra sure as it is a business listing and not a BLP.
832:
591:
publication notable, we have to look at how the subject is covered within the publication. Is the coverage
931:
837:
655:
157:
985:
874:
856:
779:
764:
725:
669:
496:
413:
295:
59:
36:
907:
712:
697:
626:
531:
384:
947:
510:
487:
428:
177:
53:
408:
884:
461:- Local coverage that does not provide the required depth of coverage to establish notability. --
319:
707:
have another opinion right here. Sir, Being in a
Article Rescue Squadron, you know better. --
925:
789:
746:
603:
592:
468:
277:
255:
233:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
984:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
339:
708:
693:
622:
527:
380:
943:
775:
736:
556:
491:
441:
405:
205:
963:
880:
688:
552:
522:
514:
437:
398:
372:
315:
201:
784:
741:
683:
598:
518:
463:
376:
273:
251:
229:
877:
provide additional support for the notability of the Orient
Express Cocktail Bar.
118:
650:– Here are circulation statistics from the New York Magazine media kit page:
426:
When considering the sources for this restaurant, keep in mind the concept of
342:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
774:
Restaurants and commercial food service companies fall under the purview of
651:
517:. There needs to be multiple primary and secondary sources (not to forget
440:, we want to see coverage of an organization beyond its own local media.
288:
Note: This debate has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
312:. I think that the references are enough to establish notability.
621:: I support the above said comments of WikiDan61 and Jerem43. --
978:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
555:
that the coverage of a topic extend beyond its own local area.
735:
The discussion over reviews is an old one. As it stands now,
509:: Sir, here we are not discussing about the notability of
761:
Note that this article is about a company, not a food.
114:
110:
106:
961:
on my blog and make money from it when that happens.--
176:
349:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
246:
list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
992:). No further edits should be made to this page.
268:list of Business-related deletion discussions
224:list of New York-related deletion discussions
190:
8:
266:Note: This debate has been included in the
244:Note: This debate has been included in the
222:Note: This debate has been included in the
200:Just another bar in NYC. Not particularly
371:- Wiki is not a business directory. Fails
287:
265:
243:
221:
722:would be removed from the encyclopedia.
586:magazine is a local publication akin to
574:(to NA1K)- I think you may be confusing
290:list of content for rescue consideration
551:and does not meet the requirement of
7:
24:
828:The Wall Street Journal article
543:As I have already noted, while
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
971:02:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
952:16:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
935:14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
916:07:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
895:06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
873:. The references mentioned by
862:04:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
800:02:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
770:06:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
757:05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
731:04:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
717:02:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
702:02:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
675:01:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
631:17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
614:17:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
567:16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
536:15:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
502:13:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
479:03:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
452:13:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
419:12:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
389:09:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
361:09:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
301:01:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
67:08:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
330:17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
282:16:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
260:16:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
238:16:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
216:14:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
658:(DMA) is in New York State,
81:Orient Express Cocktail Bar
73:Orient Express Cocktail Bar
1009:
660:29% of its DMA is national
823:Time Out New York article
981:Please do not modify it.
652:Demographics/Circulation
32:Please do not modify it.
656:Designated market area
875:User:Northamerica1000
838:Village Voice article
833:Village Voice article
843:Haute Living article
436:? In general, for
904:WP:Run of the mill
397:– since it meets
48:The result was
969:
860:
819:– More sources:
768:
729:
673:
545:New York Magazine
511:New York Magazine
500:
488:New York Magazine
434:depth of coverage
429:depth of coverage
417:
363:
303:
299:
284:
271:
262:
249:
240:
227:
1000:
983:
968:
929:
893:
859:
857:Northamerica1000
854:
798:
797:
767:
765:Northamerica1000
762:
755:
754:
728:
726:Northamerica1000
723:
672:
670:Northamerica1000
667:
612:
611:
559:
499:
497:Northamerica1000
494:
477:
476:
444:
416:
414:Northamerica1000
411:
357:
351:CharlieEchoTango
348:
344:
328:
298:
296:Northamerica1000
293:
272:
250:
228:
208:
195:
194:
180:
132:
122:
104:
62:
61:Mr. Stradivarius
34:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
999:
998:
997:
996:
990:deletion review
979:
927:
908:Dominus Vobisdu
878:
855:
787:
783:
763:
744:
740:
724:
668:
601:
597:
565:
557:
495:
466:
462:
450:
442:
412:
355:
337:
313:
294:
214:
206:
137:
128:
95:
79:
76:
60:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1006:
1004:
995:
994:
975:
974:
973:
955:
954:
937:
918:
897:
867:
866:
865:
864:
848:
847:
846:
845:
840:
835:
830:
825:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
780:WP:Foodservice
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
580:the New Yorker
578:magazine with
561:
549:local coverage
456:
455:
454:
446:
366:
365:
364:
346:
345:
334:
333:
332:
306:
305:
285:
263:
241:
210:
198:
197:
134:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1005:
993:
991:
987:
982:
976:
972:
966:
965:
959:
958:
957:
956:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:
936:
933:
932:
930:
922:
919:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
898:
896:
892:
890:
886:
882:
876:
872:
869:
868:
863:
858:
852:
851:
850:
849:
844:
841:
839:
836:
834:
831:
829:
826:
824:
821:
820:
818:
815:
801:
795:
791:
786:
781:
777:
773:
772:
771:
766:
760:
759:
758:
752:
748:
743:
738:
734:
733:
732:
727:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
690:
685:
681:
678:
677:
676:
671:
665:
662:. Therefore,
661:
657:
653:
649:
646:
645:
632:
628:
624:
620:
617:
616:
615:
609:
605:
600:
594:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
554:
550:
546:
542:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:
504:
503:
498:
492:
489:
485:
482:
481:
480:
474:
470:
465:
460:
457:
453:
449:
445:
439:
435:
431:
430:
425:
422:
421:
420:
415:
409:
406:
403:
400:
396:
393:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
362:
358:
352:
347:
343:
341:
336:
335:
331:
327:
325:
321:
317:
311:
308:
307:
302:
297:
291:
286:
283:
279:
275:
269:
264:
261:
257:
253:
247:
242:
239:
235:
231:
225:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
64:
63:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
980:
977:
962:
939:
924:
920:
899:
879:
870:
816:
679:
663:
659:
647:
618:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
548:
544:
540:
506:
483:
458:
433:
427:
423:
394:
368:
367:
350:
338:
314:
309:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
58:
57:
54:WP:CORPDEPTH
49:
47:
31:
28:
164:free images
709:Bharathiya
694:Bharathiya
623:Bharathiya
528:Bharathiya
381:Bharathiya
986:talk page
944:Rorshacma
794:I did it!
790:blah blah
751:I did it!
747:blah blah
608:I did it!
604:blah blah
558:WikiDan61
473:I did it!
469:blah blah
443:WikiDan61
274:• Gene93k
252:• Gene93k
230:• Gene93k
207:WikiDan61
37:talk page
988:or in a
964:Milowent
928:itsJamie
889:contribs
881:Eastmain
584:New York
576:New York
563:ReadMe!!
448:ReadMe!!
340:Relisted
324:contribs
316:Eastmain
212:ReadMe!!
125:View log
39:or in a
871:Comment
817:Comment
776:WP:Food
737:WP:Food
680:Comment
648:Comment
619:Comment
593:routine
541:Comment
507:Comment
486:– The
484:Comment
424:Comment
356:contact
202:notable
170:WP refs
158:scholar
98:protect
93:history
940:Delete
921:Delete
900:Delete
785:Jeremy
742:Jeremy
689:WP:GNG
599:Jeremy
588:Boston
553:WP:GNG
523:WP:GNG
515:WP:GNG
464:Jeremy
459:Delete
438:WP:ORG
399:WP:GNG
373:WP:GNG
369:DELETE
142:Google
102:delete
50:delete
684:WP:RS
572:Reply
519:WP:RS
379:. --
377:WP:RS
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
948:talk
926:OhNo
912:talk
885:talk
778:and
713:talk
698:talk
627:talk
532:talk
395:Keep
385:talk
375:and
320:talk
310:Keep
278:talk
256:talk
234:talk
178:FENS
152:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
56:. —
192:TWL
127:•
123:– (
967:•
950:)
914:)
887:•
792:•
749:•
715:)
700:)
666:.
629:)
606:•
596:--
534:)
471:•
410:.
407:,
404:,
401::
387:)
359:)
322:•
292:.
280:)
270:.
258:)
248:.
236:)
226:.
172:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
946:(
910:(
891:)
883:(
853:—
796:)
788:(
753:)
745:(
711:(
696:(
625:(
610:)
602:(
530:(
475:)
467:(
383:(
353:(
326:)
318:(
304:,
276:(
254:(
232:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.