Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standing Sushi 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Sushi Bar

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

Not notable. Has plenty of shallow, trivial, coverage but nothing of any depth. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - Initial source searches indicate that the topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TechCrunch article is OK, but the other two are trivial. WP:CORPDEPTH says that the depth of coverage must be considered and "acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as ... routine restaurant reviews...". Philafrenzy (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial English-language source searches are somewhat thin, but it's likely that more are available from Japanese, Singaporean and Indonesian sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone, including me, should read these sources more closely. Just noticed that the TechCrunch article is a 1 April spoof! This leaves this article with nothing but routine reviews. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I may have to eat crow on the first source in my !vote above. I overlooked the short note at the end of the article that states, "PS: It’s April 1, guys." Regardless, sources may exist in other-than-English-language sources. Also, topic notability is never based upon the sourcing within articles themselves, it's based upon the availability of sources (see WP:NRVE). Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources need to be "recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources" etc. Is that likely for a small chain of sushi bars with three outlets? Have you given any thought to what exactly you are trying to preserve? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't address the sarcasm of the comment "Have you given any thought to what exactly you are trying to preserve?". This doesn't improve the encyclopedia, and is also negative in tone and nature. Perhaps consider searching for sources, rather than simply judging the ones that others provide. Also, some restaurants are quite notable and only have one location, so the notion of "only three outlets" has nothing to do with encyclopedic notability on Wikipedia, and is subjective. Happy editing, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as sarcasm. It was a serious question. This is a small chain of sushi bars with no distinctive features at all as far as I can see. I am genuinely puzzled as to why you feel they warrant an article just because they managed to get a few reviews of the type they all have. (that isn't sarcasm either!) Philafrenzy (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be puzzled. Conversely, I can then ask, 'Have you given any thought to why exactly you're so adamant about this one article being deleted from public view?' Also, I consider the sentiment, "This is a small chain of sushi bars with no distinctive features" to be entirely subjective, lacking any basis upon Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Articles are not deleted from public view based upon this type of subjective criteria itself. Also, it's important to be cognizant of the potential for Wikipedia:Systemic bias to occur in the encyclopedia, due to a lack of Western coverage about Asian topics that sometimes occurs. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well write or edit an article on an Asian topic that actually matters then. (I know you did not create this article) There are enough missing. I will support that 100%, but this particular one simply isn't notable. I wouldn't expect to see an article on a three outlet chain of English restaurants where I live if there was nothing notable about them. You will notice I frequently create articles about Africa, Asia and South America. Incidentally, worries about systemic bias didn't stop you nominating José Lorenzo Cossío y Cosío for deletion! Philafrenzy (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is too subjective for me, per WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. However, have fun. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will do, see you around. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remain on-topic about Standing Sushi Bar here, rather than other matters. Happy editing, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Here's two more reliable sources, both of which provide significant coverage:

Yu, Eileen (July 1, 2013). "Singapore SMB rides out 'do-or-die' moment with tech". Zdnet. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
(in Indonesian) Santap Sushi Sambil Berdiri. Tribune News. November 4, 2012.

– These, combined with the following sources...

– qualify the topic's notability as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Again, it's likely that additional non-English/Indonesian/Singaporean sources are available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Coverage is more than just run-of-the-mill reviews. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple coverage in independent, reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:13, 18 February 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.