Mohammed ibn Kiran

Enoteca Boccaccio (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)

WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. A few WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS in Melbourne papers are not enough to demonstrate notability especially given the WP:PROMO tone of a lot of this article. The Herald Sun is dubious as a reliable source, nor is notabily inherited because the restaurant is owned by a prominent local family. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom, it needs more than restaurant reviews in Melbourne papers, otherwise we'd be creating articles for every restaurant reviewed. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom and Libstar appear to be referring to WP:AUD requirement. That requirement gives an example of how small a newspaper would be serving for it to be too small: e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town. Melbourne has a population of over 5 million. The AUD guideline requires at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. It gives an example of regional as "(e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)". The Herald Sun is the biggest newspaper in Australia, and the Herald Sun's reliability concern is about their factual reporting, not about opinions presented about restaurants. The concern wrt opinions there would be that this was undisclosed paid promotion; there is no evidence that is the case here, indeed it is extremely unlikely.

If you exclude the Herald Sun, there is still The Age which easily meets the AUD requirement. There is plenty of other significant coverage which add up to pass WP:NCORP.[1][2][3][4] The article also doesn't read as having a particularly PROMO tone (It has been described as reminiscent of Italy's streets and piazzas. can be better attributed). It seems like editors think anything that can reflect positively on a business is PROMO. I see BLPs all the time that are far more positive: look at any celebrity FA (e.g. Katy Perry, Oscar Isaac so on.) Sorry this is so long, I really do not understand how the nom perceiving the article to have a PROMO tone would make restaurant reviews in what they describe as "Melbourne papers" not contribute to notability: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the person who wrote WP:AUD ~17 years ago, Rollinginhisgrave has the correct interpretation. Anyone who wants to learn more about AUD may find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement or the longer version at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Rollinginhisgrave. I see no major issues with tone. The Herald Sun is a reliable source, especially when they are reporting outside of the political realm. Satisfies NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Rollinginhisgrave, WhatamIdoing even if the sources are valid per WP:AUD, they dont really demonstrate anything other than this place exists and has generally favourable reviews. That sounds pretty WP:MILL. MILL may not be formalised policy, but it is good advice on sensible interpretation of WP:GNG and explicitly says: Some articles not to create based on common sources only are:

*A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers

Yes, you can argue that these papers have national circulation, but these WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS are clearly written for a local audience. If this is the standard we accept than any restaurant in a capital city that is reviewed by that city's major newspaper is inherently notable... Giving private businesses wikipedia articles based solely on reviews starts to sound a lot like a WP:TRAVELGUIDE and free publicity does it not?Dfadden (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfadden, I used small-town vs big-city restaurant reviews as an example at User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement#Examples, and I think you should read it.

I am confused by your claim that https://www.theage.com.au/goodfood/melbourne-eating-out/first-look-at-the-stately-enoteca-boccaccio-above-balwyn-s-boccaccio-cellars-20230614-p5dgki.html (the source I clicked on) is "clearly written for a local audience". I expected to see something like "a nice little place to visit if you're already in the neighborhood" (a polite way for reviewers to say "not the worst, but not worth a trip"). Instead, the opening sentence says "The D’Anna family has been luring Italians...to Balwyn for 60 years". Traveling from Italy to Balwyn requires 20 hours in an airplane. That's not local. Maybe you made some assumptions?

Poking around briefly, I find that the restaurant has won the 2023 "Best Hospitality Interior" from Belle (an Australian architectural/design magazine). That's another national source indicating notability. I'll go add it to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The D’Anna family has been luring Italians... it requires a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest this is saying people are travelling 20 hours from Italy just to come to this restaurant. Especially given the large Italian diaspora that exists in Melbourne and without anything to support this claim. If someone can cite a review in an Italian paper, sure! Or if there was a report saying a notable Italian person had travelled to Australia just to visit this place, or even stopped in while in town, then that would be evidence to support this claim. In the absence of this, it might as well be editorial hyperbole. And I have re-read your link to AUD examples. It is making a reasonable assumption that because a place has a large population, major newspapers in those markets will only cover businesses which stand out. However, that alone does not make a restaurant notable as it still needs to satisfy the top level criteria at WP:NORG. That requires editors to consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. So apart from the suggestion that people have travelled from Italy and an award for interior design, can you direct me to an article that provides discussion of the cultural, societal, economic or historical impact of this restaurant? An example of this standard being met is Lentil as Anything which was the subject of a book and a television documentary and catered for an International Conference. Also see Colonial Tramcar Restaurant - when it closed, The Age described the event as "A sad day for society", evidenced by support and sadness expressed in the broader community. Dfadden (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it doesn't require any SYNTH at all. SYNTH requires a minimum of two sources, and we are discussing only the interpretation of a single source. You might credibly say that I'm making a big assumption that the "Italians" who are so lured are being lured from their home country and not just from a hotel down the street. I would have to agree with you: it could be editorial hyperbole. But the ambiguity prevents me from agreeing that this review is "clearly written for a local audience", as you claimed above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Age's Good food guide is a national magazine. A chefs hat rating is akin to a Michelin star in Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly carries some weight and I am not denying this is a very well regarded restaurant. But again, does the hat provide social, cultural, historic or economic significance? I dont believe it does; this is not the only hatted italian restaurant in Melbourne - in fact, its not even in the AGFG top 5 rated italian restaurants in Melbourne[5]: Bottarga in Brighton, Al Dente Enoteca in Carlton are both double hatted and have no articles. Grossi Florentino (double hatted) has an article, which establishes cultural, social and historical significance by virtue of its Murals being classified by the National Trust and WP:LASTING coverage over 95 years. There are 4 other Italian restaurants in Melbourne that received a score of 13 chef hats, above Enoteca Boccaccio's score of 12 and none of them have articles either. So what is so significant about this place that it deserves its own article? Dfadden (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph of WP:ORGSIG that you partially quote above is about not disfavoring small businesses just because they're small, or over-favoring large businesses because they're big. We have, for example, had people suggest in the past that all publicly traded companies should be automatically notable, or that all companies employing more than n people should be notable; ORGSIG opposes this kind of bias. Editors who are thinking "Who cares, it's just a little restaurant" need to think about whether there might be something else going on – something that might even make them more successful when they search for sources. ORGSIG is not a requirement that organizations must have some cultural significance that is legible to Wikipedia editors; it is not saying that WP:ITSIMPORTANT is a good reason to keep an article. It's trying to get editors away from a knee-jerk "just a little restaurant so it's obviously non-notable" mindset towards "Let's see whether there might be something else going on here."

The rest of this comment is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bottarga and Al Dente Enoteca are probably notable, even though nobody's written the articles yet. We have many Category:Lists of Michelin-starred restaurants; maybe there should be a list of these restaurants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging in the discussion with well-thought out replies. I'm not at all suggesting that small businesses are less notable than large ones. In fact, I think the example I gave of Grossi Florentino supports that small businesses can indeed be notable. I guess in this case, I have considered your proposition Let's see whether there might be something else going on here and I'm entirely unconvinced that there is anything beyond Enoteca Boccaccio being a restaurant that makes good food and has nice decor. It does sound like a great little restaurant and I'm convinced I would like to eat there. But it's more the the kind of thing I'd expect to read about in a travel or food guide, certainly not an encyclopedia. There does have to be, as you put it, something else going on here that makes it notable otherwise any restaurant with nice decor and a review in a major newspaper becomes apparently encyclopedic content. I don't think that is a good thing for wikipedia. Anyway, I have said far too much on this now, so I will pipe down now and let consensus determine the outcome. Peace. Dfadden (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the intended meaning of ORGSIG, it should be amended to be clearer. I don't Dfadden was unreasonable in making this reading. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per the sources in the article. WP:MILL is neither a policy nor a guideline. There's no basis in notability policy that something must be unusual to be notable. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given debate over the applicability of the guidelines and essays raised in this discussion (WP:AUD, WP:MILL, WP:SYNTH), I think this would benefit from some more discussion and perspectives.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]