Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Little

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Little

Pretty Little (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)

Most of this article is based on one restaurant review from Sydney Morning Herald. I'm not sure if Broadsheet is a reliable source but it's another review. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Sidney Morning Herald definitely meets
  WP:PRODUCTREV. There's a potential at Herald Sun but I'm unable to actually read the review. —siroχo 08:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Firstly,
  WP:AUD, which states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". The Sydney Morning Herald is a generally local newspaper, and so is the Herald Sun, which focuses on Melbourne. While both newspapers are located in different cities (Pretty Little is located in Victoria), I'm not convinced that reviewers for two local newspapers publishing non-SIGCOV articles on restaurants in different cities is enough. In addition, most of the material in the sources isn't SIGCOV and, thus, I don't believe the restaurant passes the GNG. This is reflected in the article, which is composed mostly of "description" and "reception". The "description" section is unnecessarily detailed and seems entirely trivial. The "reception" section is also quite trivial; actual good information, such as history, is limited. And the restaurant opened fairly recently, in 2019, so there's no historical value in this article either. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: It has been relisted and this is enough of an Indicator to me that it isn't beyond a reasonable doubt to be nominated for deletion. That is my requirement for voting delete. It must be an obvious vote, not a debatable one. Huggums537 (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was relisted because no one had cast a !vote. If you support keep you must address how a notability guideline is met, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:NCORP, run-of-the-mill restaurant with no awards, no notable achievements. WWGB (talk) 14:24, 12 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.