Ristorante Machiavelli: Would need wider coverage as per WP:AUD to meet GNG or WP:ORG.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator) as the topic has been covered by multiple independent and reliable sources.  This is a continuation of restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily (my user talk page is littered with notifications for similar entries which have been kept following AfD discussions).  Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local and regional news sources as well as books and other industry outlets, providing in-depth coverage of the business.  I've asked the nominator many times to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD.  This entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Business ,  and Washington . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm looking at the sources, and they are all either local reviews or listings in somewhat larger works.  If that is all a restaurant has, it does not distinguish it from hundreds of thousands of others. I could write a similar article about a dozen restaurants in the town closest to where I live (which is about 5% of the size of Seattle).  None of those are notable either; they have no significant history and are not mentioned in sources that are not restaurant listings. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've expanded the article significantly, but I haven't even touched The Seattle Times archives or completed a library search for other newspaper and book sources. I am curious if you searched for sources other than those already used as citations? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The first block of 13 are really poor references.  Its all ultra-local coverage and no indication its notable.  Its all the same kind of local reviews.  Not only does it fail WP:SIRS and WP:GNG .  Its also fails WP:AUD ,  Another very poor effort with something has no historical value.  My local restuarants are built before 1720, which is the newest.  Under the criteria you apply, I could effectively put in every pub and restuarant in the UK into Wikipedia.  scope_creep Talk 17:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It was easy to find national coverage of this restaurant to meet WP:AUD , and I have edited the article accordingly.  Orange Suede Sofa ( talk ) 02:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Multiple article sources easily meet WP:SIRS and WP:AUD .  Is "historical value" that scope creep requires listed anywhere as a requirement in WP:NORG ?  --Rhetorical question.  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 23:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , GNG compliant.  Nice improvements.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as the article has basically been rewritten since the nomination.  Please review new additions to the article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This fails WP:NOTTRAVEL .  It's written accidentally promotionally as a synthesis of WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS .  Clearly fails WP:NCORP , which trumps GNG.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Since it is covered by Bon Appétit & Lonely Planet nationally, & out-of-state Daily Journal of Commerce , this passes WP:AUD , which states at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.  WP:AUD is part of WP:NCORP, so the arguments that if fails that do not work for me.  Peaceray ( talk ) 22:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Neutral on this.  Probably scrapes a GNG pass.  Sourcing is better than Post Alley Pizza.  The reception section requires a severe pruning to remove the promotional dross.  Rupples ( talk ) 20:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep and tag for cleanup.  As explained by Peaceray above, this passes AUD, and Bon Appetit alone would satisfy the strict requirement of [a]t least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source .  And based on the abundant other reviews I don't think there's any question that it passes the other elements of NCORP, viz. ha[ving] been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject .  I don't really see the NOTTRAVEL argument here -- the existing article may have some unencyclopedic bits, but it doesn't seem to me that it is wholly or irreparably unencyclopedic (and TBH I'd guess the overemphasis on reviews probably comes from defensive editing to pass NCORP), so that's more of a cleanup issue.  My keep is weak mostly because although the technical requirements of the rules are met, I'm just not presuaded this is the best way to approach this encyclopedically.  I'd much rather have a more full-featured List of restaurants in Seattle (or sublists) and merge all these articles there.  But as no plausible merge target currently exists and we face a simple question of whether to include encyclopedic information about this restaurant as a standalone article or not at all, I'm not seeing a case for deletion.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- the sourcing in the article is sufficient to meet GNG.  Arguments that similar sourcing would allow many such articles to be written about restaurants in smaller towns than Seattle aren't convincing.  If that's true then those articles shouldn't be deleted either, or perhaps it's a rhetorical exaggeration, as "local coverage" means very different things depending on the locations.  Seattle metro has more than 4 million people, roughly the population of Panama.  Regional coverage there carries some weight.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 12:12, 24 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep