660:- I can't argue that a simple "Restaurant X exists, newspaper Y went there, and food B was Z" type reviews shouldn't be used to establish notability. The SFGate reference is most certainly this type of review. The MetroWise SF seems to be different as it makes reference to how it compares to other similar restaurants in SF and how it's "sure to be a hit." As all of the Mountain View references are similar to the one they wrote about Patxi's, I can't really say anything about what it implies. The TechCrunch reference is pointing to an award the subject won that we haven't discussed. After reading the competition results, I feel that, given my technical background, it's reliable and TechCrunch, a very large website, agrees. Other large websites agree as well and have provided links to the study/award but I didn't want to link up the article for what essentially amounts to one reference. I don't like to participate this much in an AfD but like I said, I'm torn. The award may not be enough by itself and what essentially amounts to one non-regular review isn't enough by itself which may be why the AfD seems to be so split.
389:. I'm torn. I can see how restaurants aren't inherently notable for having 2+ reliable sources do reviews but I don't think it's as black and white as the delete !voters are making it out to be. If restaurants aren't notable from reviews, how else would they be? For doing things in the community? Winning awards? I can't agree that a restaurant is only notable for doing something outside of what its main intention is (make money making food) and the 4th reference is citing an award that they won that TechCrunch believes to be notable (TechCrunch has an Alexa ranking of 234). Like I said, I'm still torn but in what I consider to be a very gray area, I'm siding as a keep unless someone convinces me otherwise.
464:- Restaurant reviews are opinion pieces, not stories; they are not checked for factual accuracy as would normal articles would be. While they do establish verifiability, they do not establish notability because every restaurant is reviewed in a local news outlet at some time or another. For a restaurant to be notable, you would need to show what makes it notable - how it impacts the community it is in, if there is something that is historical about the business or some other fact beyond its menu - reviews do not do that. Reviews only show the place is there, what it serves and whether the reviewer liked it or not. --
631:), I am familiar with the interaction of the press and restaurants. Whether it is in industry publications or local news outlets, each and every time a new restaurant opens there is an article about that restaurant. With unique restaurants, that is non-major chain such as McDonald's or Applebee's, there is almost always some sort of review of the establishment. Google any restaurant you know of with the "reviews" modifier and you will find a review. Some hits may be an actual article about the location, those article will establish notability. Can you prove that this doesn't happen? --
710:- (edit conflict) As for whether or not all new restaurants are reviewed, I personally trust Jeremy's experience. I'm not sure that it doesn't make all non-Mcdonald's etc. type locations notable but I personally agree that just about new every non-McDonald's location gets a review of some sort. Whether or not that means that humans are just incredibly interested in new food as its a huge part of their life or if the new restaurant has actually done something to be notable should probably be decided on a per review basis. In short, not all reviews should be thrown out the window.
238:- Again while reviews establish verifiability, the do not confer notability. The sources provided show that the chain exists and are from reliable sources in some cases, they do not show how it is notable. Every restaurant gets reviewed at some point or another, that does not mean every restaurant is notable. Further, reader polls are the same, they're just a popularity contest. To truly establish notability for a restaurant, you would require an article about the establishment - something about what makes it unique or how it impacts its community. None of these sources do that. --
742:- O.Y. is correct and has succinctly pointed out that not all reviews should be tossed out. Some reviews are important, there are cases where a major chef or company has opened a new concept location that failed miserably. Reviews commenting on this sort of thing are pertinent and establish notability; there are other situations that apply as well where a review would contribute to notability. The main argument I am making is that just because a restaurant has been reviewed does not automatically confer notability, even when the source is reliable. --
48:. I can't see a consensus here because the key issue - the avlidity of restaurant reviews is clearly a bit of a policy gap and, as the discussion shows, there is a need to reach a consensus on reviews as a RS. I suggst the participants open athreadt at RS and I will happily revoew the close based on the consensus of that discussion
440:
Who is We and can you please cite your claim? I haven't read anywhere that reviews aren't taken and you still haven't addressed my points ("If restaurants aren't notable from reviews, how else would they be? For doing things in the community? Winning awards?"). If We is
Knowledge (XXG) and your
683:- The award/study was done by Dr. David Ayman Shamma (hold a B.S./M.S. from the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition at The University of West Florida and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the Intelligent Information Laboratory at Northwestern University). He has published
559:. How else would you establish notability of a restaurant other than through restaurant reviews? We're not here to second-guess what sources think; we can merely accept the fact that independent sources felt the subject was worth discussing in some depth
584:- by that reasoning all restaurants are notable because they were reviewed, as all restaurants are reviewed at one point or another. But not all restaurants are notable, we now this to be true, therefore reviews do not establish notability. --
149:
547:: two refs to the website of the chain itself; two refs to absolutely standard restaurant reviews; and one ref to a passing mention in a blog-like article. Together: nothing resembling significant coverage. --
441:
claim is your opinion, I appreciate that you're entitled to your own opinion but I'd like to clarify that it's just that; your opinion and not a fact or even policy or guideline reached by concensus.
110:
291:
202:'s significant coverage from reliable and independent sources with the 4 provided references (there are 6 total right now but two are from the official website of the subject).
143:
687:
and currently works for Yahoo! Research as a
Research Scientist. He was also a visiting research scientist for the Center for Mars Exploration at NASA Ames Research Center.
265:
340:. #4 is a one-word reference in a sentence listing several other pizza places. Would the Keep proponents care to explain how these references meet the requirements?
83:
78:
87:
627:- After working in the hospitality industry for nearly thirty years combined with the work I have done on WP in the subject of restaurants (See the
70:
520:- Where is there any promotional material. I think that you have mistaken articles about companies for promotions. There's no weasel words,
306:
572:
551:
508:
348:
328:
280:
255:
230:
212:
190:
324:
164:
17:
131:
753:
642:
595:
475:
320:
249:
125:
504:
778:
759:
697:
670:
648:
617:
601:
534:
481:
451:
428:
399:
377:
52:
36:
186:
74:
121:
226:
777:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
171:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
628:
500:
412:
accept reviews as satisfying the requirement that a subject be discussed in "significant detail." What we
613:
373:
182:
66:
58:
222:
137:
364:"? We accept reviews as reliable sources for articles about books, films, plays, music, visual arts
360:. Would you care to explain where you get the idea from that reviews are "debarred from counting as
568:
336:
Let's examine the valid references. #1, #2 and #3 are reviews, which are debarred from counting as
157:
749:
638:
609:
591:
548:
471:
369:
302:
276:
245:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
711:
688:
661:
525:
442:
421:
390:
341:
203:
521:
361:
337:
316:
564:
417:
199:
744:
633:
586:
466:
298:
272:
240:
49:
104:
684:
771:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
608:
What evidence do you have that all restaurants are reviewed?
561:
in the same way as they'd discuss any other notable peer
100:
96:
92:
156:
221:
Certainly not a great article, but clearly meets N.
292:
list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions
170:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
781:). No further edits should be made to this page.
266:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
286:
260:
290:: This debate has been included in the
264:: This debate has been included in the
524:, or unverified claims that I can see.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
420:, that the subject exists at all.
24:
416:accept reviews for is satisfying
368:, so why not for restaurants?
198:- In my opinion, it satisfies
1:
760:20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
698:19:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
671:19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
649:19:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
618:18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
602:18:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
573:14:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
552:22:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
535:14:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
509:07:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
482:05:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
452:14:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
429:14:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
400:22:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
378:20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
349:20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
329:03:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
307:00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
281:00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
256:16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
231:23:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
213:22:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
191:22:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
57:
53:03:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
720:19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC
798:
774:Please do not modify it.
321:Regent of the Seatopians
32:Please do not modify it.
629:Foodservice Task Force
181:Queried speedy delete
67:Patxi's Chicago Pizza
59:Patxi's Chicago Pizza
501:Wile E. Heresiarch
44:The result was
757:
646:
599:
479:
309:
295:
283:
269:
253:
183:Anthony Appleyard
789:
776:
758:
747:
717:
716:
694:
693:
667:
666:
647:
636:
600:
589:
531:
530:
480:
469:
448:
447:
425:
396:
395:
362:reliable sources
345:
338:reliable sources
296:
270:
254:
243:
209:
208:
175:
174:
160:
108:
90:
34:
797:
796:
792:
791:
790:
788:
787:
786:
785:
779:deletion review
772:
743:
714:
712:
691:
689:
685:several studies
664:
662:
632:
585:
528:
526:
465:
445:
443:
423:
393:
391:
343:
239:
223:Maury Markowitz
206:
204:
117:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
795:
793:
784:
783:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
704:
703:
702:
701:
675:
674:
654:
653:
652:
651:
605:
604:
576:
575:
554:
541:
540:
539:
538:
512:
511:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
456:
455:
432:
431:
403:
381:
380:
352:
351:
331:
310:
284:
258:
233:
216:
193:
178:
177:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
794:
782:
780:
775:
769:
761:
755:
751:
746:
741:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
721:
718:
709:
706:
705:
700:
699:
695:
686:
682:
679:
678:
677:
676:
673:
672:
668:
659:
656:
655:
650:
644:
640:
635:
630:
626:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:
603:
597:
593:
588:
583:
580:
579:
578:
577:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
553:
550:
546:
543:
542:
537:
536:
532:
523:
519:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
494:
483:
477:
473:
468:
463:
460:
459:
458:
457:
454:
453:
449:
439:
436:
435:
434:
433:
430:
427:
426:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
402:
401:
397:
388:
385:
384:
383:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
350:
347:
346:
339:
335:
332:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
308:
304:
300:
293:
289:
285:
282:
278:
274:
267:
263:
259:
257:
251:
247:
242:
237:
234:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
215:
214:
210:
201:
197:
194:
192:
188:
184:
180:
179:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:Find sources:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
773:
770:
739:
728:
719:
707:
696:
680:
669:
657:
624:
610:Phil Bridger
581:
560:
556:
544:
533:
517:
496:
461:
450:
437:
422:
413:
409:
405:
398:
386:
370:Phil Bridger
365:
357:
342:
333:
312:
287:
261:
235:
218:
211:
195:
167:
161:
153:
146:
140:
134:
128:
118:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
424:Ravenswing
344:Ravenswing
144:free images
754:I did it!
750:blah blah
643:I did it!
639:blah blah
596:I did it!
592:blah blah
565:bobrayner
476:I did it!
472:blah blah
299:• Gene93k
273:• Gene93k
250:I did it!
246:blah blah
518:Question
111:View log
740:Comment
708:Comment
681:Clarify
658:Comment
582:Comment
549:Lambiam
499:promo.
462:Comment
387:Comment
358:Comment
334:Delete:
150:WP refs
138:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
745:Jeremy
715:Yeller
692:Yeller
665:Yeller
634:Jeremy
587:Jeremy
545:Delete
529:Yeller
497:Delete
467:Jeremy
446:Yeller
406:Reply:
394:Yeller
241:Jeremy
236:Delete
207:Yeller
122:Google
88:delete
625:Reply
522:WP:OR
438:Reply
410:don't
317:WP:RS
219:Keep:
165:JSTOR
126:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
614:talk
569:talk
557:Keep
505:talk
418:WP:V
374:talk
366:etc.
325:talk
315:Per
313:Keep
303:talk
288:Note
277:talk
262:Note
227:talk
200:WP:N
196:Keep
187:talk
158:FENS
132:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
408:We
297:--
271:--
172:TWL
109:– (
752:•
729:)
713:Ol
690:Ol
663:Ol
641:•
616:)
594:•
571:)
563:.
527:Ol
507:)
474:•
444:Ol
414:do
392:Ol
376:)
327:)
319:.
305:)
294:.
279:)
268:.
248:•
229:)
205:Ol
189:)
152:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
756:)
748:(
645:)
637:(
612:(
598:)
590:(
567:(
503:(
478:)
470:(
372:(
323:(
301:(
275:(
252:)
244:(
225:(
185:(
176:)
168:·
162:·
154:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
124:(
116:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.