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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Park Grill[edit]

Park Grill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article just appeared as a link in numerous articles that are part of the Millennium Park WP:FT. Before discussing at WP:FTQ, the implications of this article to the integrity of the topic, I want to be sure that there is consensus that this is a notable restaurant. It is conceivable that consensus may be to merge this into another of the topic's articles. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read all the material and footnotes added in the last 24 hours, and haven't seen anything to change my views. The concession issue was news for a few weeks and is minor in terms of Chicago politics. I will be blunt: the only genuinely encyclopedic thing I read in the article is its great views of the plaza, (good enough to appear in a movie!), which reinforces my view that it should be (and is) a section in the Plaza article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The concession issue was news for a few weeks..." The concession issue was news for more than 4 years. Chicago Sun-Times broke the story February, 2005. A court decision came down in July, 2009. Neutral, verifiable references from multiple reliable sources included. Hugh (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Looks very much like a thinly cloaked advert to me." I agree on your suspicions of the motives of the original editor(s), but we are supposed to assume good faith, and in any case it's more than that now. Let the owners write about the view & their Kobi beef burger and we can write about how they got a tax-exempt restaurant with free gas, water, and garbage pick-up, and maybe some kind of balance is struck.Hugh (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True re the improvement. And what it looked like was with the assumption of good faith! changed my !vote. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Keep The story of how the owners of Park Grill got their "lease/concession agreement" in Millennium Park is notable in the context of Chicago politics and contracting in the Richard M. Daley adminstration.Hugh (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everything you need to know about how the City That Works works can be learned by understanding the Park Grill. The Park Grill is every bit as notable a monument to Chicago as the Bean on the roof.Hugh (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Everything you need to know" is why I said that it is minor. Stories like this have come out of Chicago several times a year for perhaps the last 50 years. If many contracts from every city agency are awarded in controversial circumstances, then it is news, but not encyclopedic. This is worth of the order of a million dollars a year to the Park District, which has an annual budget of $390 million. This is why media outside Illinois does not take any notice, and Wikipedia shouldn't either, in my opinion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"media outside Illinois" The Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, Crain's Chicago Business, NBC Chicago are regional media. Hugh (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Stories like this have come out of Chicago several times a year for perhaps the last 50 years." WP:ALLORNOTHING Are you arguing the nothing side wrt contracting in Chicago? Hugh (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. I am arguing for the general topic of contracting in that city to be covered, and that we omit articles on minor examples. Perhaps you will permit me to be even more blunt: we document motor vehicle accidents, but we don't, and shouldn't, cover every single one that is in the city newspapers, even when a driver gets a prison term. So yes, the Park Grill contract should get a mention in an article about the Park District, and perhaps the one about the Plaza. But Park Grill should be a redirect to its section in the Plaza article. I appreciate the contract section that you and Off2riorob created - it is a good piece - but its level of detail would fit far better at Wikinews (a website that I love) and not here on Wikipedia. All of the new sources are local, notwithstanding the importance of the Sun-Times and the Tribune. I remain unconvinced of notability to Wikipedia's standard. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Stories like this have come out of Chicago several times a year for perhaps the last 50 years." Please consider joining WP:CHICAGO. We could use more people with the perspective and insight that comes from a commitment to keeping up with the news out of Chicago. One need not reside in Chicago to join. Hugh (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I am arguing for the general topic of contracting in that city to be covered, and that we omit articles on minor examples." In your opinion are issues related to contracting in Chicago over or under represented in WP? In my opinion contracting irregularities are a notable aspect of Chicago, currently so under-represented within WP:CHICAGO articles generally as to violate NPOV. Obviously we are not a booster site or a tourism guide. Which in your opinion are the major examples? Hugh (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I am arguing ... that we omit articles on minor examples." Are you arguing the the Park Grill story is a minor contracting scandal example in Chicago? Very few contracting scandals in Chicago elicit any response from the Daley administration, but Daley himself addressed this on multiple occasions. The City Law Dept. responded in writing. The County Assessor got involved. No other Daley administration contracting dispute advanced to the appellate courts. I could add more neutral, verifiable, reliable references; would that help in your assessment of the notability of this story? Hugh (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The contract didn't go to court, only the property tax. My opinion on its meeting the notability guidelines will be changed if I see a full article in a national paper or magazine. However, I confess that my recommendation to delete won't change unless something dramatic happens, like a Michelin star, multiple resignations, early termination of the contract, or a prosecution. I find nothing compelling in the fact that it has a great view of an interesting (and notable) sculpture, shares territory with an important (and interesting) ice rink, or was once mentioned in statement by the Mayor. Sorry. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The contract didn't go to court, only the property tax." The contract was central to the litigation; a judge was asked to make a determination as to whether the contract was a lease or license. Hugh (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I find nothing compelling in the fact that it has a great view of an interesting (and notable) sculpture, shares territory with an important (and interesting) ice rink, or was once mentioned in statement by the Mayor." I agree, but the restaurant was not just mentioned once, it discussed by the Mayor in several press conferences (I could add a reference for each, would that help?) and covered in the press over a course of years (but I repeat myself). BTW there is no view of any sculpture from the restaurant (the "bean" is on the roof). Hugh (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"mobbed up" and "ex-con" were taken directly from the references.Hugh (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding titillating tabloid expressions from low grade citations is not policy.Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"titillating tabloid expressions" Can you please be more specific? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"low grade citations" Can you please be more specific? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's a fair point about the POV. You should read the court case for a more straightforward version of some of the events. Less prone to sensationalism and more accurate with framing, especially of the legal issues in the property tax dispute. The "mobbed up" references, etc. if actually used in those articles, show that the Sun-Times circa 2005 (relied on very, very heavily for the Clout Cafe section) may have been hard after a scoop on this one and may have been pushing the clout angle hard. Not that it's not a legit story, but the way it's framed and what is emphasized may need some thought. Some citations are needed for some statements, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.142.135 (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section relies on multiple neutral, reliable, verifiable sources including the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Reader, Crain's Chicago Business, NBC Chicago, court records, and commentary on the court record from a legal commentary website. Signing, Hugh (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"There appears to be a degree of attack article here, I am not sure why or what..." Can you please be more specific? Thanks! Hugh (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"am happier with it now" How is this relevant? Hugh (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.
More