Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitra Samaja

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitra Samaja

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP^added and WP:PROMO. Non notable restaurant in India with passing mentions in travel articles about cuisine is all it can muster. DBigXrayᗙ 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC) [ updated on 16:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Mitra Samaj is the sourced name. Page was named with a less known name but I retitled the name as you see Mitra Samaj is supported by the sources. This is a notable restaurant and has got sufficient coverage by reliable sources like Penguin UK, The Hindu, Outlook India, NDTV, Times Now, NDTV, and that is on the top of my head. The way you are trying to involve this restaurant in your childish fights with me should be beyond anyone who has a mature mind. -- NavjotSR (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canvassing here valereee (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors NavjotSR (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NavjotSR: All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing immediately follows the sentence to which you refer, yet you refer to the restaurant as notable in your message, which, as the discussion is about the notability of the restaurant, is biased and therefore constitutes canvassing. SITH (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources listed above only have passing mention (see analysis in the table below), these sources only serve to verify that this restaurant exists. To claim notability significant coverage is needed. If newspapers and media dont consider it notable enough to publish an article on the restaurant, why should we expect Wikipedia to do this and promote the restaurant. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Penguin UK The Penguin Food Guide to India		reliable publisher	has just a one line passing mention of eatery recommendation in the city article without elaborating on the subject directly or in detail	✘ No
The Hindu, In search of Udupi sambar,		newspaper	2 line mention of the restaurant in a recipe article about "Udupi sambar" dish.	✘ No
Outlook India, The eponymous town in Karnataka probably gave India its first culinary brand		newsmagazine	a statement from the owner and a 2 line mention of the restaurant in a recipe article about "Udupi sambar" dish.	✘ No
NDTV, A Walk Down Memory Lane		newschannel	3 line mention of the restaurant	✘ No
NDTV, 6 Dishes from Udupi Every South Indian Food Lover Must Try			2 line mention of the restaurant	✘ No
Times Now, Independence Day 2018		news channel	1 line mention of the restaurant	✘ No
Rediff news, In Udupi, food is the greatest binder	interview of the owner, see WP:ORGIND	news site	interview cannot be used to claim SIGCOV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--DBigXrayᗙ 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You first claimed that the subject is a "PROMO" and no one mentions the restaurant except travel articles. Now you claim now that a subject needs to be named at least 1000 times on a page then it would become notable? You are talking absurd. These reliable sources have dedicated more than 200 words to describe the restaurant, that is "significant coverage". I would expect administrators not to fall for your dishonesty. NavjotSR (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above unless better sources turn up. Catrìona (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you taking words of User:DBigXray only because he spends more time on Wikipedia than I do? NavjotSR (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of independent sources only passing mentions, definitely not covering up the general guidelines for notability. Rekonedth (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

How this requirement has not been completed? Can you define how all of the above sources like The Hindu, NDTV, and others are not independent source and only provides a passing mention? You need to read 2 - 3 pages of review by Outlook magazine, which starts from page. 450 and reads about Mitra Samaj until page. 452. This magazine is very well known and has article on Wikipedia too:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlook_(magazine)

NavjotSR (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new reference added above "review by Outlook magazine, page. 450 and page. 452." These are 2 separate passing mentions on 2 different page as one can see in this search result I also note that Outlook states " Their menu also features the huge 'Outlook Dosa', named so after being featured in the Outlook magazine. They do not use onion or garlic in any of their dishes. Authentic Udupi meals (Rs 30) can be had at 'meals only' Mitra Samaj located opposite here." This appears to me as a case of Quid pro quo and makes it appear as though this particular coverage was indeed promotional for the restaurant. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor sourcing & the text would be better suited to voy:Udupi#Budget where it's already listed. The text hovers between article about the restaurant, menu recommendations, and a biography of its founder. As a consequence it performs none of those tasks adequately. Cabayi (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not about what is in the article. See WP:ARTN. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Per the sources provided by NajotSR. Especially the comment on 13:10, 2 January. This AfD is nothing more than a spillover from Talk:Rafale deal controversy. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, though I support draftifying because we are close to notability with this one. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per above. A 70 year old+ restaurant that is still receiving significant coverage in reliable sources to this day. Rzvas (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cant agree a lot with discussion below but can't comment otherwise either. Rzvas (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Echo Cabayi and nom. Fails GNG.∯WBG^converse 05:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per analysis of above sources, and because I was unable to find substantive coverage when I looked, though there are plenty of one-sentence mentions. Vanamonde (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The significant coverage argument that Rzvas puts forward again has been debunked.--v/r - T P 15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find where? I based my comment on the significant coverage provided by Outlook magazine. There are no policy basis to reject significant coverage provided by that magazine. Furthermore, the nom is using a misleading argument in his analysis of sources because he expects sources "to publish an article on the restaurant" but this is not what WP:GNG is. WP:GNG requires "more than a trivial mention" which has been sufficed by plenty of sources and there is no "need to be the main topic of the source material."

Above table is misleading. For example, it claims that this reference gives a "2 line mention" but the name "Mitra Samaj" alone has been mentioned 3 times. You should do your own analysis than relying on a table that misrepresents sources. Rzvas (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rzvas: I've reviewed it again per your request and I agree with DBigXray's description. It's 2 lines plus a quote. Of the paragraph, only the location, date it opened, and the resturant's owner's name are relevant for the article. Perhaps even a claim that it resides in a town that may, in one author's opinion, have contributed to India's culinary brand.--v/r - T P 16:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source searches on Google, Google Books and WorldCat both in English and (auto-translated) Hindi reveal nothing other than a bunch of passing mentions, hardly enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I see no evidence to suggest that शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil's assertion that this is a spillover from Talk:Rafale deal controversy, however I am not and do not have a desire to become involved with an editorial dispute. As far as I can see, this AFD is totally based upon the merit, or lack thereof, of the article in question. SITH (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rzvas: you deleted my comment, I'm assuming it was accidental and just a botched edit conflict. Reinstating. SITH (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)-[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse: Are you searching for "Mitra Samaja" or "Mitra Samaj"? Anyway, thanks for citing WP:CORPDEPTH and per the policy, "book passage" are considered as "significant coverage". Sources from Penguin UK, Outlook magazine, etc. meets that requirement. Rzvas (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guideline, not a policy. But both, and yes, that single source does satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH but per WP:MULTSOURCES A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. One column in The Hindu's opinion section... I'm not sure that qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. SITH (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is also a guideline then but we abide by it. I was not referring to The Hindu, but Outlook magazine and Penguin UK. While Outlook magazine has provided multiple passages, Penguin UK has provided at least 1 passage that makes it notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. What made you think that this source is a "opinion section"? Rzvas (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Features section === opinion section. SITH (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-term ex-reader of Hindu; noting that SITH is correct in his description. AFAIR, this oughta be part of their Sunday magazine that was 40% amateur journalism + 60% promotion. ∯WBG^converse 19:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding the outlook magazine source being discussed here please see my observation above. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:14, 3 January 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.