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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elements (restaurant)[edit]

Elements (restaurant) (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)

Does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. Sourcing is provided by routine restaurant reviews. We cannot include every restaurant that gets a review. Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Restaurant reviews are exactly the type of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. If The New York Times thinks a restaurant is worth writing about, the restaurant is probably notable. Most restaurants do not receive the range and number of reviews that Elements has received. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time and time again it is argued that because something has a article in the New York Times, it must be notable. I have yet to see this policy granting auto-notability to anything that can be sourced to the New York Times. The fact is the New York Times regularly covers New Jersey and this falls under WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, we can include every restaurant that is sourced as that's our policy, "Other than verifiability ... there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content." Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, the nothing should be deleted argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment. If it wasn't for the Forbes article ranking it 35 in the top 100 U.S. restaurants I would be advocating delete as all other references are local (NJ is a local area of the NYT). To be meet WP:GNG, it needs at least one more major non-NY source (e.g. Washington Post, Los Angeles Times), OR to appear in another major top restaurants in America list. I could not find any. If we had an LA equivalent who only appeared in the local LA papers and the LA times (and a Forbes list), would it meet GNG. Maybe not. Remain open-minded. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case it affects your opinion, I just want to point out that the Forbes source is not written by a staff member or published in a print issue. Forbes.com "contributors" have been judged generally unreliable. Colin M (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Colin, the Forbes article is basically the equivalent of an opinion column. And much more importantly, it is nothing more than a listing, there is no in depth coverage of the restaurant in Forbes.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's an bad point because it appears that the Forbes article hasn't been properly read or understood and so its content is misrepresented. The article in Forbes is not one person's listicle. It's a review of a list published elsewhere and that list was based on a survey of 70,000 places by about 3000 food experts. The exercise covered the entire USA and was organised by Steve Plotnicki who is quite a reputable pundit. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter how many people were polled, its still a list, not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources do review it, that's how you determine if a restaurant is notable. Dream Focus 03:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Virtually every restaurant, especially finer dining, has been reviewed by local sources – this does not mean it is notable. Wikipedia is not Yelp and such local content does not guarantee inclusion. Wikipedia not being paper is not a blanket excuse to keep anything in routine local coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Its not just coverage it gets in New Jersey, it also gets coverage in New York, and Forbes magazine even mentions it. Dream Focus 22:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York city is right next to Jersey, it's still local coverage. The Forbes article is nothing more than a list, it is not in-depth coverage and therefore cannot contribute to notability. --Rusf10 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A city of 8 million people is next to a state of 9 million people, so you consider that local coverage? Dream Focus 11:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Having considered this further (re my comments above), this restaurant is a ghost outside of the New York area; the Forbes list is not a recognised list of greatest U.S. restaurants (and it is just Forbes.com which is not Forbes), and Elements is missing in the main U.S-wide lists (e.g. here, here, here, here). In fact, I could not find Elements in any main U.S. top 50 to 100 restaurant list (never mind global top 100 restaurants). Why would WP keep an article on a notable New York restaurant that is unknown outside of the NY area? Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Oof. So borderline. Feeling pretty neutral at this point. I do want to push back against the idea that a full review in the New York Times can be written off as "local". It's the newspaper of record for an area with the population of a mid-sized country and has a large readership outside of that area that sources we label "local" in the dismissive sense don't have. It's not a small town paper that reviews everything. It has little short reviews and full reviews, and this one received the latter. The notability that comes with that sort of review is why the most destined-to-be-notable restaurants open there -- because they can increase that notability much more easily there. TL;DR it's not fair, but a NYT review of something just counts for more than a review of something in the Bangor Daily News (sorry, Maine), because it covers a huge population, has to be a lot more selective, and has a wide reach. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For illustration, there are reportedly more than 26,000 restaurants in the NYC.[1] I don't know how many there are in New Jersey, but I suppose 5,000 may be a good guess. I'd say 99% of them won't receive any coverage in secondary sources, and very, very few of them will receive coverage on the level this article currently has. (Which is considerable even if restaurant rankings and reviews are excluded.) By their nature, restaurants are predominantly local businesses - Princeton, New Jersey is hardly a tourist locale - and I don't think coverage on the national level is necessary to establish notability. GregorB (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That NYT article is about a different restaurant? Is this a bad link, or did the restaurant change names, or what? valereee (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to be a review for another restaurant owned by the same owners -- it is a bare mention of Elements. I'm removing that source from the article. valereee (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Very good spot Valereee. The case for Elements is now just ILIKEIT; not even a notable NY-area restaurant. Britishfinance (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Particularly poor spot, Valereee and Britishfinance. :P Go to the article. Look for the only NYT source. Click it. It's a review of Elements... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, wow, that must have been a lack of coffee issue...I would have sworn I checked to see if there were any other NYT article listed! So sorry! valereee (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I still can't believe a single NY Times restaurant review makes this notable.WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources. Would someone please show me what policy says that everything the New York Times covers must be notable? Every other sources presented is indisputably local, so how have we come to the conclusion that the restaurant is notable based on one source alone?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with the removal of the NYT article, I this falls to non-notable for me. valereee (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm on the fence, but mainly to counterbalance the particularly poor delete arguments based on (a) the incorrect statement that the NYT article is not about this subject, (b) the idea that major papers in a 20-million-person metropolitan area is "local coverage", and (c) something about it not being on top lists of restaurants, which isn't part of our notability guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourcing is adequate to establish notability. The 2010 New York Times piece is clearly about this restaurant: Elements, all glass, stone and metal, offers a range of dishes, at fair prices, like chicken liver pâté; Opened in October 2008 by Stephen Distler and Scott Anderson, the chef, it is a few blocks off the tourist magnet of the Nassau-Witherspoon intersection. The 2013 review is about another restaurant opened by the same pair, and it only gives elements a brief mention, but I don't see why that mention should be excised, either. Following up one business success with another is a reasonable thing to cover in an article about the restaurant business. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 27 February 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.