Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia Dairy Company

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. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Dairy Company

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

small restaurant with only very local significance and local references DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to List of restaurants in Hong Kong. Not finding enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify a standalone article, but content is verifiable~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per the sources below, squeaks by WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of restaurants in Hong Kong. Keep. The coverages in multiple independent reliable sources are enough for a standalone article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic is clearly notable, and it does not fail WP:GNG. This restaurant has become tourist attraction in Hong Kong, renowned by Hong Kong residents for its service. Having only 'local' significance and references is not a reason to delete an article. Remember that English is an official language in Hong Kong. This article should not be deleted. Regards, Sovereign /^Sentinel 10:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 146.199.67.6 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sure why a rather new-looking IP is relisting, but okay) Weak merge Coverage is predominantly travel guides ([1][2] and all of GBooks hits), and most of those currently used in line is arguably no RS (i.e. no other wikis, no blogs). Other sources (e.g. [3]) are very much exclusive to § Controversy, which might constitute WP:COATRACK for Hong Kong–Mainland conflict, or just WP:UNDUE 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, I relisted to allow further discussion by more participants to determine consensus. --146.198.28.207 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC) ^{(formerly 146.199*)}[reply]

Speedy Keep - Being "small" and "local" are not valid reasons for deletion. STSC (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources not yet used in the article. CNNGo (about pg here; became CNN Travel) covered it,[4] as part of their 'Best Eats Awards'. Time Out (HK) did a short bit on it [5] like USA Today‎ [6] did in a similar roundup. Travelguides like Marriott's,[7] GuidePal,[8] MetropolAsia (?)[9] do refer to it, as an institution or place to visit, but there are other sources.
NewsBank shows significant length print media coverage – the South China Morning Post,[10] as well as coverage in Singapore and Australia newspapers the Straits Times and Gold Coast Bulletin.

I do want to add that blogs can be RSs. For example, 'TastyTreats' [11], whose About page shows it's run by a journalist of the food & drink section of Time Out London mag, would (arguably) come under WP:SPS's "self-published expert sources". Taking a couple of others, OpenRice (which The Globe and Mail suggest is[12] well regarded) awarded them top something or other, and The Culture-ist[13] looks to have at least some editorial oversight. Anyway, there is some lengthier sourcing, even if The New York Times style mag one is just a paragraph[14]. –146.198.28.207 (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @NorAm & Wkology – would you mind taking another glance, see if say the SCMP and maybe one or two of the others push it over the notability threshold for you?

I would have to agree. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:24, 4 July 2015 (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.