Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower Drum

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Drum

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

WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The claim made of it being in the Top 50 restaurants of the world was not found in any citation given in the article. It received one review in the NYT some years ago, but that is the extent of coverage outside of Melbourne, and the rest of the coverage is from one magazine. MSJapan (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)#[reply]

Delete as per all the above reasons. For the record, I initially put this forward for WP:PROD Keep satisfied that recent edits meet notability requirements Ajf773 (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of this simply suggests it's obtained some local coverage, but nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:CORP clearly states a business is notable if it has been the subject of significant reliable independent coverage in secondary sources. WP:CORPDEPTH states if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited. WP:AUD also states that significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. This article easily satisfies all those criteria - with coverage in a number of Australian (national) publications over the last forty years. Dan arndt (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources about the restaurant, which is what notability is based upon, as opposed to only those within the article. See also point D of WP:BEFORE.

The topic also passes WP:AUD, because in addition to local coverage, the company has received significant coverage outside of Melbourne, such as on another continent in New York and in The Sydney Morning Herald, based in Sydney, which is 878 kilometres (546 mi) from Melbourne, and other coverage, such as in books published by reliable sources. See source examples below.

Also, the article does not have a particularly promotional tone. The article does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with it. Rather, it provides an overview about the company based upon what reliable sources state. Lastly, there is presently no claim of the restaurant being one of the top 50 in the world, because the nominator removed this content before nominating it for deletion (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The New York Times
The Fortune Cookie Chronicles. Grand Central Publishing. pp. pt150–pt151
The Sydney Morning Herald
Executive Style (published by Fairfax Media, based in Sydney)
The Sydney Morning Herald
News.com.au. (scroll down on page). (owned by News Corp Australia, based in Sydney).
Herald Sun
The Age
The Age (1985)
The Age (1985)
The Age (1976)
The Mercury
The Sydney Morning Herald (around 5 ¶)
The Sydney Morning Herald ^{[dead link‍]}. Quote from [1]: "We take a peek behind the scenes at the reinvigorated Flower Drum."

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified above that mean WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprising to discover this many sources (above) that actually significantly cover this one restaurant. The New York Times? Holy Moly! And scanned newsprint articles from the 1980's and 1976? That's correct! It is refreshing to see the real deal at an AfD. Kudos to NA 1000---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another clear case of Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion brought to you by MSJapan. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wonderful. This has made my day. To my mind the topic is notable (and GNG seems to think so too). Thincat (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple hits from HighBeam, the majority being just mentions, found the "top 50" quote in Australasian Business Intelligence (2003) - The Flower Drum was voted one of the top 50 restaurants in the world in May 2003. and in depth coverage in the International Herald Tribune (2005) - Flower Drum is often called the greatest Chinese restaurant in the world, an example of the many many mentions - The Washington Post (2004) - The Flower Drum (17 Market Lane) is the most celebrated Chinese restaurant in Melbourne...-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:28, 8 July 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.