Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ashvale

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashvale[edit]

[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)

Article fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:PROMO Angryskies (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG as there is impressive press coverage such as this
And ever since it opened its doors in 1985, the Ashvale has cast its net wide in attracting some very big fish from showbusiness, politics and sport to sample its suppers. The list – which ranges from Mel Gibson and Gregor Fisher to Sir Elton John and Lewis Capaldi and Annie Lennox to Denis Law – testifies how this Granite City locale has become one of the most famous restaurants in the whole of the north-east.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that this place is pretty well-known locally which is backed by such sources as Evening Express (Aberdeene Newspaper) 1, 2 as well as a source mentioned above [1]. However this can't be considered a significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as required by WP:NCORP especially taking into account the stronger emphasis on the quality of the sources required by the guidelines applied to organizations.Less Unless (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The Press and Journal article looks pretty decent, and if there's more than what's linked already I'd happily consider changing my !vote. When I search myself, I haven't found anything else yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from a Weak Keep to plain Keep as it transpires that there is ample out there to establish notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles published in multiple sources that cover the Ashvale- the Aberdeen restaurant itself appears to be known better than the chain. At the point of nomination there were no references included in the article- a lot of work has been done to add material. While I feel notability has now been established as judged against WP:COMPANY, there is more material included that appears promotional. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the original shop in Aberdeen has certainly had much coverage over the years, not least for the awards it has won. However, I would agree with comments that there is material which is tending towards the promotional rather than being encyclopedic content and so the article could probably do with some editing. Dunarc (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. An analysis of the references within the article show the following:
- The Herald Scotland article from 1994 references one of the restaurants in the chain as being the best takeaway. It provides no information whatsoever on the company as a whole, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This from intrafish.com relies entirely on information provided by the company and their MD, John Low jr. This fails WP:ORGIND as it is not "Independent Content" and the article is classic churnalism.
- The Caterer reference just parrots information provided by one of the restaurants and/or the company such as saying *we* have a much lower profit margin, not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- The El Pais reference is an article on "24 hours in Aberdeen" where the author mentions one of the restaurants, recounts its closing time, observes the fact it has a green carpet and that they serve battered and fried food and mentions a portion called Whale where if you eat one you get another free. The article fails to provide in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Lonely Planet reference is a standard entry for one of the restaurants, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Evening Express reference isn't about the company or one of the restaurants but is mentioned in passing as one of their directors received an honour for his services to the seafood industry and charity. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Guardian reference doesn't even mention the company nor any of their restaurants, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- The mentions in the book Untrodden Grapes are similar to a review of the author's experience eating in the restaurant. There is no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Press and Journal reference is churnalism, based entirely on an interview with a company director and the tone of the article is promotional. It is not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from the Herald Scotland is a mention-in-passing to the same story referred to in the previous article of how Barry Robson signed for Aberdeen over a fish supper in one of the restaurants. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- Finally, this reference from The Scotsman is a mention-in-passing where it is announced that a dinner will be held later that night in one of the restaurants. There is no attributed journalist (just By The Newsroom) and reads like PR. In any case, there is no in-depth information provided on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Not a single reference meets the criteria and I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept any of that. To start with, an interview is not churnalism and I should know because I created the article about it. And someone nominated that for deletion too. And most of the complaints are a lack of focus on the overall company rather than the flagship restaurant. That's just the nature of the topic; the natural focus of the topic is on the founding, flagship establishment. The financials of the company are touched on but, because it is privately held, rather than public, there's not much investment interest. The essential point is that the place has been noticed and the scope of our coverage must naturally follow the sources rather than some editor's pre-conceived ideas. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and the criteria for acceptable references to establish notability are clear and strict - they have to be strict to stem the flow of organizations treating Wikipedia like the Yellow Pages or as a promotional website. The article is about a company, not about an individual restaurant, so we need in-depth details on the company. You say that its just the nature of the topic - I disagree and there's certainly no exceptions in the guidelines that I can see. If the company was notable, somebody somewhere would have written about it and not just about a single restaurant. An interview may not be churnalism, I agree, but both of the ones I referred to are classic examples of churnalism and were created and only serve to promote the restaurant/company. Finally, the "essential point" is not that the place has been noticed but whether it meets our criteria for notability. You are correct that we must be careful to avoid editors' pre-conceived ideas about what they believe is a "good" topic - that is why we have very good and clearly written guidelines. If you want to argue about any of the references meeting our guidelines, that discussion can be held here. On the other hand if you want to argue that this topic should be an exception, that probably belongs at the NCORP talk page. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only about a company inasmuch that it mentions that, in addition to the main restaurant, it has expanded to include other branches, then names the locations. Aside from that it is effectively entirely about the original and main restaurant. Accurately reflecting the de facto focus would take a couple of minor word changes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A notability guideline is not policy. Guidelines are loose rather than rigid and so a narrow reading is not appropriate per WP:PETTIFOG. The nutshell for that guideline just restates the WP:GNG. That general guideline is satisfied and so we're good. If the main restaurant is the focus of the coverage then this is not surprising. I noticed a branch of The Ivy in Victoria recently and it seems that's another case where a famous restaurant starts spawning other branches but our article doesn't say much about them. This is to be expected and is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, the example of The Ivy occurred to me last night and I almost mentioned it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, guidelines *can* be loose in some ways but when they're not, they're not. As you say, the "nutshell" for NCORP is a restating of GNG with clarification on how to apply the guidelines to GNG, so if one isn't satisfied then neither can the other. GNG is also a guideline but it doesn't take precedence over NCORP. As I said, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and you've not argued that my analysis is incorrect or that I've misinterpreted any of NCORP's guidelines. The only people "wikilawyering" at this AfD are the people trying to pick and choose which parts of which guidelines they'd like to implement for this topic while ignoring the parts they don't want/like. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If by "people" you are including me: you made several points, I responded to one. Entirely legitimate to address issues one by one to narrow the points of contention. If it's alright by you, I'll continue to contemplate the other aspects for now before expressing a view; don't leap to conclusions in that regard. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2020 (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.