Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mott 32

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mott 32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Appears to fall short of notability due to the lack of sustained coverage. The bulk of the references appear to be non-reliable sources, or are simple reviews. A cursory WP:BEFORE appeared not to uncover anything more significant. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are you sure about it needing more sustained coverage? Seems like every restaurant opening or announcement has had a flurry of news articles, some of which are outside of the immediate region. If the result is delete then retarget to Mott Street and add it as an entry in the Popular culture section there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I just felt it could use a bit community insight before a bold redirect. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk

• Keep - I actually approved this through AfC and from my review there are sources that show it meets WP:GNG. Yes, there are reviews but I wouldn't call the LA Times, South China Morning Post, Hong Kong Tatler, and Vancouver Sun "non-reliable sources." I also based my evaluation on the fact it receives more than just local coverage. In fact, it receives international coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but they are simple reviews.TheLongTone (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agree they are reliable sources, but (and excuse the pun) they are flashes in the pan. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was funny (and good puns never need excused). I still think we don't need to 86 (see how that works. lol) the page because you consider them reviews. I see reviews as something in the opinion section of a newspaper and are pretty short and to the point. These actually talk about not only the food, but the design of the restaurants as well. Architectural Digest is a reliable source and did an article about it last week. This one from 2016 also talks about the design and covers information on more than just one location. So I do understand while on the surface this looks like a run of the mill restaurant, I would say GNG is met based on the significant coverage both on the local level and internationally. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no coverage of depth whatsoever and what is there is press releases, blogs and opening notices. Very poor. Another listing candidate. scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As there are millions of restaurants in the world, tend to think any restaurant making it onto a notable list of the worlds 50 best should be kept. I assume the reason the link is in the article she also has because the restaurant at some time made this list. If so—and only if so—source the fact and keep. If not, no further comment on the place. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By appearing on a list doesn't make it notable. It is another X of Y article that has been made to fill an empty page. It is depth of coverage that is important and there is no depth. scope_creep^Talk 15:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t paint all articles with that same brush. Hardly as if experts in the field randomly selected 50 restaurants for their small list of the world’s best. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reference for this being in Top 50 is in the article...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True but I just found and added reference from Vogue magazine noting their Las Vegas debut amongst 2019's most anticipated restaurant openings. Pretty high-level source. Adjusting vote per this. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Press coverage doesn't rise above the level of press releases and their reviews. No awards in the food category. Two minor awards in the architecture category do make it more borderline, but as far as I can tell they are relatively minor level awards. Still, they are a good start, and frankly I'd like to see this rescued - but I can't find any better coverage. Please ping me if there are any new sources for consideration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree about press releases and reviews, but I see the references slightly different. There are reviews, but there is also in-depth coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Just because they talk about the food and concept doesn't necessarily make them run of the mill reviews of the restaurant IMHO (what else would they talk about?). They also cover the concept, the founder, the chefs, etc. - all in coverage that is international and in reliable sources. Also, the parent company website shows many awards for the chain so they they do have awards in the food category. I don't believe that awards make something inherently notable. But, wanted to point them out since you weren't able to find any in your initial search. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I had always thought restaurant reviews did not qualify as SIGCOV, until my prod of Dim Tu Tac last year was deprodded with a notice about WP:PRODUCTREV. Mott 32 is relatively well known and the article includes reviews from respectable media in multiple countries. I'd say it slightly exceeds Wikipedia's threshold for notability, especially if its Singapore and Bangkok locations are opened according to plan. -Zanhe (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Convinced by nom. ∯WBG^converse 12:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I find a lot of sources that feature this restaurant; hwoever, it may be better to have an article on Maximal Concepts instead of Mott 32 since they are the owner and have many brands including Mott 32.--RTotzke (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG, although I agree Maximal Concepts may be the best place for this content.4meter4 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2019 (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.