Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Lagos

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in Lagos[edit]

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

Delete per what wiki is not. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the discussion to continue. I will say that the list is greatly improved from the original incarnation and it shows a lot of time and effort being put to make it within our guidelines. My concerns are similar to User:Rhododendrites about deleting when the article has been drastically improved, that being said I think that the vastness of the sources itself is actually something that will deter some editors from actually checking the references. I say assume good faith but verify lol, I think that it is definitely on the edge of keeping but I'd prefer getting more input from the community because we all we check different references. Italso should be mentioned usually I feel lists like this are kind of spammy but that's just my personal opinion and obviously not a consensus on wiki. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the Wikipedia administrator in charge of this list's nomination for deletion: The list: List of restaurants in Lagos was created while editing via a poor internet access. As a result, the list is still in the process of creation and will be improved as soon as possible. Eruditescholar (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Not one single notable entry on this list either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The article is a business directory. Lugnuts is correct about the lack of notable entries. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep This list was not intended to be a directory. I have cited sources where feasible and subsequent unsourced entries will be removed as I and other editors contribute continuosly. At the time of writing this statement, and on close scrutiny, the list currently has some notable entries. Any piece of advice on improving the list is welcome. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR indeed. The only notable listings appear to be individual locations of large restaurant chains. Either the list would be of notable items (for which there do not seem to be enough, unfortunately) or it would be a directory (whether or not it's sourced). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) See comments below. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Deleting may not be the answer here, but this article needs an overhaul in order to not be a directory. If you look at other articles of the type "list of restaurants in (city)" you'll notice all the restaurants listed are notable and almost all have their own articles. This list reads like a travel guide. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. At the risk of sounding silly, do we really want to open the door for List of pet stores in Topeka or List of hotels in San Diego as valid encyclopedic topics? Carrite (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All entries on the list now have sources. Anything else to make it less of a directory? Eruditescholar (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Verification of their existence doesn't change it being a directory. The idea is that an encyclopedia should be selective in what it covers rather than admit lists of everything that exists. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Let's not overstate. Providing sources does help towards establishing the notability of these restaurants, so that it can become what it ought to be - a list of notable restaurants in Lagos, analogous to List of restaurants in New York City and many similar lists. Of course not all the restaurants listed may be notable, but that's more a reason to remove them from the list than to delete the whole list. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy1339: - Adding sources does help establish notability, but as of now very few meet that threshold outside of chains (which, keeping with precedent in lists of restaurants in other cities, shouldn't be listed unless the company is headquartered there). That said, the list has come a long way since I last looked at it thanks to Eruditescholar's work to it. I don't know that there's enough out there to support this list, but I'm no longer comfortable !voting delete about an article that looks so different from it did when it was nominated. I struck my vote and will abstain hoping the improvements will continue. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - (delete vote struck above) More sources added, several unsourced or primary sourced removed, and I know there are more out there because I stopped while I still had tabs open. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- @Hell in a Bucket: I drew your attention to your nomination of this list for deletion because it has been greatly improved since Rhododendrites assisted me with editing. We have made significant improvements to the list. Issues warranting nomination for deletion has been addressed. As a result, the list is no longer a directory and I see no rationale in continuing this discussion. Hence, a request for consensus. As a Wikipedia deletionist, it might be easy to insist on the continuation of this discussion on the grounds of reliability, confirmation of sources or other reasons. I have to reiterate the fact that the current list is very much different from how it looked like when it was nominated. At the time of nomination, the creation occurred in the midst of an unexpected and interrupted internet connection (which rarely happens to me). Afterwards, it took some time for me to rectify this problem and access the high speed internet to continue the edits. Yes, there have been many sources added, mostly secondary ones and I'm confident that over 90%, if not all, are reliable. Let's be realistic, how long does it take to confirm the reliability of citations? I am very welcome to other editor's contributions to this discussion. As an experienced editor with several inputs to the Wikipedia community, I want to assume you have good intentions, other wise, if this discussion must continue, then it is beginning to look like your primary goal is to ensure that this list is deleted from Wikipedia. Eruditescholar (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been very clear on why the discussion should continue, I appreciate that you have put in a lot of hard work on this list and I am a deletionist but I think that this list needs more scrutiny. I'm sorry if that means you will assume less good faith based on my opinion that it is still worth a discussion. I think it's on the edge of being acceptable, merely having loads of sources doesn't automatically end a discussion the substance and depth of those coverages should be detailed. I could source damn near every resturaunt anywhere and make a list. I find lists that are only lists without accompanying articles somewhat spammy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Nominator has requested additional discussion due to article improvement during this process. If even nominator is vacillating about deletion, it's reasonable to offer this process another seven days. BusterD (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (replaced below). I think a list of restaurants that are individually notable and have their own articles would be fine. But as it stands it's effectively just a trade directory, and that's something that Wikipedia isn't. Neatsfoot (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a concern that could be fixed by editing, changing the inclusion criteria, etc. Or are you saying none of those sourced items are sourced to the extent they could be considered notable? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm suggesting that to get in any list article, a restaurant (or anything else) should have an article written about it first that demonstrates its notability (and that's notability for the specific restaurant itself in this case, not the chain) - there are plenty of lists of notable thing around here that work like that. Just adding all the sources you can find into a list like this leaves us with the silly situation where each entry has 5, 6, 7 or more sources and the references section is bigger than the list - and it's still not clear if each entry passes the notability criteria. (A lot of references currently used are just "dining out" directories, reviews, etc and really only demonstrate the existence of the restaurant and not notability - I looked at one that has nine sources, and they're all of that type). The alternative of allowing lists of anything that happen to fit in any arbitrary set is as Carrite suggests above - "List of chiropodists in Ouagadougou", "List of chicken sexers in Somerset"... the list of possible pointless lists is endless. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No individual restaurants have articles, only three chains. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Neatsfoot: and @Clarityfiend:, It's okay to limit the list to those with articles as some of the restaurants are worthy of articles. As a compromise, I would suggest a tentative keep in order to give room for other articles on the list. I think this is better than deleting the whole list instantly. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at about half a dozen entries in detail and I honestly don't think any of them would satisfy the notability criteria - just being reviewed and/or included in lists of places to eat is very unlikely to be enough, in my opinion. I'd suggest a better alternative to deletion would be to move the article to your user space and then you can start writing some individual articles - once you have several that are acceptable (perhaps tested by AFD discussion if anyone thinks they're doubtful), then you can start adding them to a new list article. How would that sound? Neatsfoot (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Neatsfoot: A mere observation of the restaurants with citations on the list is not enough to give a conclusive information regarding their notability criteria because there are still many more sources I haven't cited on the list. You will observe that I haven't removed the construction tag since the list was tagged AfD. Thanks for your observation. Although, a tentative keep is still my preference, moving the page to my user space will be my last resort. Eruditescholar (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with what you say about references, and that's a problem with the list - you really can't use 10, 20, 30 or whatever per entry without it looking extremely silly. When you have sufficient sources to demonstrate notability, the place for them is an article and not a list entry. My preference for moving the full list to userspace is because we just should not ever have pages in article space that do not conform to our minimum requirements - to readers, every article should be in good-enough condition for article space before it gets there. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - (PS: No need to ping me - I'm watching this page. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. It's difficult to understand users who complain that there are too many citations for establishments that don't have there own articles. This list is a good place to start for developing such articles. The assertion that having too many citations makes the list look spammy is not a policy-based objection. Moreover, with even the nominator vacillating about whether the list should be deleted, I think we need to see a very compelling argument before doing so. My feeling is that we ought to be thankful to Eruditescholar for producing high quality information about Nigerian establishments, which often don't have articles because non-Western topics are not well-represented. We ought to encourage people to write about them. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious comment User:Sammy1339 as I have written almost 90 articles of my own and unless someone since this morning has talked about the number sources is me. I wouldn't even classify it as not ok I just want people to scrutinize the sources and the sheer number of those make it hard to do by anyone editor. I'd also reccomend reading WP:WTAF, it's only a guideline and not policy but it can help. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All entries without articles have been removed from the list. Eruditescholar (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks good now - good luck with getting more entries on the list! Neatsfoot (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sammy1339 78.144.245.50 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per changes to the article that began on 10 November 2014 (diff), in which it's now comprised of all blue links, it qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Restaurants in Lagos and is a useful navigation aid per WP:LISTPURP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 12 November 2014 (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.