Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orient Express Cocktail Bar

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 delete. Though there is some disagreement as to the local nature of the sources, there seems a rough consensus to delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orient Express Cocktail Bar

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

Just another bar in NYC. Not particularly notable. 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?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC),[reply]

Keep. I think that the references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- Wiki is not a business directory. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. -- Bharathiya (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – since it meets WP:GNG: [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When considering the sources for this restaurant, keep in mind the concept of depth of coverage: 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 depth of coverage? In general, for WP:ORG, we want to see coverage of an organization beyond its own local media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local coverage that does not provide the required depth of coverage to establish notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The New York Magazine source isn't "local coverage" whatsoever. It's a nationally-circulated magazine in the United States. Here's the article link [4]. Per the Wikipedia article for the magazine, its 2009 paid and verified circulation was 408,622, with 95.8% of that coming from subscriptions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Sir, here we are not discussing about the notability of New York Magazine. 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 WP:GNG. There needs to be multiple primary and secondary sources (not to forget WP:RS) and wider coverage shall be necessary. We needs to be extra sure as it is a business listing and not a BLP. WP:GNG 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 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 Wikipedia 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. -- Bharathiya (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment As I have already noted, while New York Magazine 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 local coverage and does not meet the requirement of WP:GNG that the coverage of a topic extend beyond its own local area. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply (to NA1K)- I think you may be confusing New York magazine with the New Yorker, the former is a local publication while the latter is a national publication with a much broader readership. New York magazine is a local publication akin to Boston 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 publication notable, we have to look at how the subject is covered within the publication. Is the coverage routine 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. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: I support the above said comments of WikiDan61 and Jerem43. -- Bharathiya (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here are circulation statistics from the New York Magazine media kit page: Demographics/Circulation (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 Designated market area (DMA) is in New York State, 29% of its DMA is national. Therefore, the magazine is not solely a "local publication" whatsoever, because almost one-third of it's circulation is national. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Dear fellow editors, we are simply going and taking the topic to some where else. I hope now we are not discussing about WP:RS 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 Wikipedia. Further subject, just being published in one or two does make it notable. I think WP:GNG 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. -- Bharathiya (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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 have another opinion right here. Sir, Being in a Article Rescue Squadron, you know better. -- Bharathiya (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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 Wikipedia articles about books would be removed from the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The discussion over reviews is an old one. As it stands now, WP:Food and its sibling projects do not count reviews as establishing notability, only verifiability – regardless of the source. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Note that this article is about a company, not a food. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Restaurants and commercial food service companies fall under the purview of WP:Food and WP:Foodservice, which is the daughter task force of The Food and drink WikiProject. And I wasn't discussing food, I was discussing restaurant reviews... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – More sources:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references mentioned by User:Northamerica1000 provide additional support for the notability of the Orient Express Cocktail Bar. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable due to lack of depth in coverage. Restauraunt reviews and other routine or local coverage do little to establish notability. Also fails WP:Run of the mill, 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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any bar/restaurant is going to have multiple reviews published in it's local market. Nothing particularly noteworthy about this one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 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. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 on my blog and make money from it when that happens.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:57, 20 September 2012 (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.