Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildwood Kitchen

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). —Mythdon (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood Kitchen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Small restaurant chain, only claims to notability are that the CEO's family founded other, notable, restaurant chains. No significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. A couple of restaurant reviews provided, the companies own website and a link to a Daily telegraph article about another company that happens to have a one line mention of it. noq (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of several chains in the Tasty Group run by part of the Kaye dynasty which has started numerous restaurant chains like ASK and Zizzi. Altogether, there's plenty of notability and, while there might be some scope for merger or restructuring, this should not be done by deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The chain already has 12 restaurants, which makes it significant. And it has substantial backing, and will very likely expand further. Edwardx (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, 12 restaurants and growing. Joseph2302 17:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-known chain in the UK, even if I haven't got round to eating at one yet. I've added some sources from a range of reviews in different newspapers. Blythwood (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Problably notable restaurant that passes GNG and will likely expand its bussiness. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could I ask the keep advocates to actually show how it passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP rather than just asserting it. There is nothing in the article currently that satisfies that and I am not seeing any significant coverage on google. Is 12 locations automatically considered notable? Why? Could someone identify who the Tasty group is as I can't find anything about it. Tasty PLC is the small company that owns the Wildwood brand. The fact that other family member run notable businesses does not automatically make this notable. Speculation about expansion is just speculation. The current references consist of the companies own website, what appears to be a directory listing, an article in the Telegraph about other members of the family that makes a passing one line reference to it and a local newspaper article about a promotion. Nothing significant there at all. noq (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Someone has just added some more local restaurant reviews as references. These are not considered as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. noq (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misreading of WP:CORPDEPTH, which states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Even if none of the sources are as in-depth as one might ideally like, there are several of them, and thus we satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out the bit about "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

... routine restaurant reviews" - so how is it a misreading? And no-one has addressed the bulk of my original comment. noq (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on many articles about restaurants – most recently Bocca di Lupo – and the idea that reviews are not acceptable is absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats as may be but the guidelines do say to exclude routine reviews. As these reviews are in local papers that would over time review all the restaurants in their coverage area, the reviews are routine. noq (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "routine" reviews. There will be large numbers of eating places in the catchment areas of those papers, and most will never be reviewed in this sort of detail. Edwardx (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the chain is generating some negative coverage as well (also local): Warm food and pest potential spark two-star hygiene rating for Wildwood Kitchen in Abingdon, Oxford Mail. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being scolded about cooking burgers until they are hockey pucks is a sign of quality, IMO. The good places use fresh meat and serve them medium so there is still some pink. Anyway, it was also interesting to see that Tasty's restaurants are on a list of chains banned from a development in Ashford. As usual in such cases – the more you look, the more you find. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:36, 23 August 2016 (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.