- 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. Good analysis by the participants. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Joshuya Brasserie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Closed restaurant of unclear notability; refs are incidental mentions in lists apart from the dailycal.org which covers a routine business announcement of reopening; local coverage only with no indication of regional or national importance Dialectric (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete per debate below: Found 2 sources to satisfy GNG: https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/10/17/review-berkeleys-joshu-ya-gets-a-complete-redo/ Mercury News and https://sf.eater.com/2011/8/15/6660739/inside-joshu-ya-brasserie-now-open-in-berkeley Eater.com apparently owned by Vox Media Justiyaya 16:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Run of the mill restaurant, fails GNG. College paper saying it's the best sushi restaurant in Berkeley (pop 120K) one year doesn't say much when the surrounding SF metro area is 8M people. Best burger in the Bay isn't a well-known and significant award. BBQboffin (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi BBQboffin, you mentioned that the article fails GNG, I found 2 sources above that might satisfy GNG, which of these sources are you opposing and why? Thanks Justiyaya 08:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a novice editor so I'll be the first to say I could be mistaken about my understanding of policy here and am wide open to correction/education. As I read WP:MILL this seems to me to be what this restaurant is. It opened, it got reviewed in local papers, it changed its menu, it closed. The first guideline under "What not to create" is "A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers". I added an East Bay Express source which is similar to the Mercury News source. These sources do prove they got a new chef and remodeled the place, but why is that notable when restaurants do that all the time? To overcome WP:MILL it has to be unusual or unique in some way. I do personally remember this place from my UC Berkeley days and I'm sad to see it close. I'd nominate it for a lunch run for sure, but not for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BBQboffin (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @BBQboffin thanks for your analyses there, I might be wrong but I think for an article to be notable, It doesn't need to meet WP:MILL as it's only an essay and because it's an essay and not a guideline like WP:GNG or WP:ORG, an article does not have to satisfy WP:MILL to be notable. Regardless, I don't think the essay says that if an article is "run of the mill", it should be deleted, but sort of points back to WP:Notability with "If something is truly not notable or is likely not to be considered notable, it may be nominated for deletion." Justiyaya 16:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) applies here, and local coverage is specifically addressed by WP:AUD, which says that 'at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.' The EaterSF is regional, but there is no statewide or greater coverage, and the EaterSF and Mercury News articles are in my opinion trivial or routine coverage, as discussed in the organizations and companies guideline, of a restaurant reopening with a different menu and owner.Dialectric (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dialectric I don't think AUD is an issue if The EaterSF is considered regional (as in AUD says "at least one"), and I think that the Mercury News article (aside from the first 5 paragraphs) provides non trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. This is definitely a borderline case so thanks for your analyses :D Justiyaya 16:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- EaterSF isn't regional, it's the local area to San Francisco. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Valereee Oops you're right, another search returned no results, changed vote above. Justiyaya 05:36, 3 January 2022 (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.