Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YakiniQuest

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus and it's unlikely one is going to emerge with experienced editors looking at the sources differently. Star Mississippi 03:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YakiniQuest

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

YakiniQuest (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)

Does not meet

WP:MILL restaurant. The articles best claim of notability is one "of the 6 best yakiniku restaurants in Singapore in 2016". Besides typical restaurant review coverage, there is not much - No in-depth significant independent coverage. MB 01:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Singapore. MB 01:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Local award with overly specific qualifiers doesn't really help to establish notability. None of the listed sources meet
    WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS - specifically, the clause stating "reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications", with ST, CNA, and Business Times all local publications (and arguablyTime Out too despite being owned by an international group, since their target audience is still local). A search turns up no other reliable sources that aren't already in the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - due to the sources found by Cunard. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's been numerous attempts over the years to come up with a specific restaurant sections within NCORP and nothing has been agreed to date. Every restaurant will be reviewed regardless and lots of newpapers publish "reviews" of restaurants in their area, not because the restaurant is notable but because it is in the area served by the publication. Reviews have other aspects too - for example is the critic notable, is the review published by an organization that employs proper inspectors, etc. For those reasons, just because a restaurant has a catchy story about how the owner jumped in with no experience or how the food was awarded 7/10 (or whatever score) does not make it notable. There are millions of restaurants that could make the same claim.
    HighKing++ 16:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see Delete voters assess sources found and not dismiss them as "local" coverage. Those advocating Keep have put forward a strong argument that not every restaurant in a city receives this kind of coverage from the media.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've already linked above to previous discussions on notability of restaurants. Getting reviewed in *daily* newspapers means that the newspaper tries to publish a review regularly whether that is daily or not I don't know - I'm not familiar enough with the papers mentioned but I can see that the reviews are dated to different days of the week and so if they are daily, the publisher will have reviewed hundreds and perhaps thousands of restaurants. Are we saying they're all notable because they got reviewed? Obviously not - that would be ridiculous. So there are other factors which can be considered for restaurants - Michelin stars or other prestigious awards, a notable critic (there are many), or something else which we might consider. When I look at the reviews that have been published, most follow the same formula - for example, they all mention the origin of the name (really? independently? all of them?). Some so-called "independent" reviews include the same photo of the interior. Some don't even provide a "personal" in-depth review of the food. So in my opinion, this is a standard run-of-the-mill restaurant serving decent food that get reviewed just like the hundreds of other run-of-the-mill restaurants and I can't see anything remotely notable.
    HighKing++ 21:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews says (bolding added for emphasis for quotes from the guideline that I will focus on below in my source analysis):

    Be significant: brief and routine reviews (including Zagat) do not qualify. Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources. Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications (see also #Audience). For example, a review of a local harvest festival in a local newspaper or a book review in a newsletter by a city's library would not qualify as significant coverage.

    I will discuss the "Be significant" aspect of each source in more detail:
    1. The Straits Times review notes: "If the name Yakiniquest sounds unusual for a restaurant, well, it is. And there is an interesting story behind this high-end grilled beef, or yakiniku, restaurant in Boat Quay."
      • The quote shows the author has "provide[d] broader context" about the restaurant's origins.

      The review notes: "A lot of care is given to the appetisers. Niku Soumen, beef cut into strands to look like somen noodles, is served like Japanese cold noodles, with a soya dipping sauce, seaweed, scallions and a dab of wasabi. The beef, on its own, tastes sweet, with a slight minerality. Mix it with the sauce and toppings and umami takes over."

      • The quote shows "the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth".
    2. The Business Times review notes: "There's more to meat than meeting the grill, and Yakiniquest - a loving tribute to Japanese yakiniku - rightfully doesn't trust you to do any cooking yourself. The owners are a Japanese couple who spent years on their yes, yakiniku quest, so they know what they're doing. ... Yakiniquest isn't new to Singapore, but its location is. [background about the history]"
      • The quote shows the author has "provide[d] broader context" about the restaurant's origins.

      The review notes: "The view of Orchard Road below is a bonus. Otherwise, the tables in the main dining room are fine too, fairly far apart so there's enough room to manoeuvre. The decor is a visual nod to the many eateries the owners have been to - cue dark wood panelling, Japanese-style walls and retro PVC-cushioned chairs."

      • The quote shows the author has provided a "description of the restaurant as a whole".
      3. The review notes: "A bite-sized roll of a wafer-thin slice of beef over shredded cucumber, doused in a creamy sesame sauce, doesn't excite, but it's followed by an intriguing niku 'somen' made of thin "noodles" of raw beef, which are slippery smooth in a cold dashi-soy dip with wasabi. The noodles are strangely neutral in flavour and almost bland, but perk up with the dip. ... Yakisuki is way too sweet, but a good twist on sukiyaki. ... The only blip in the meal is the rice dish - either an over-salted premix-like beef curry, or a tongue stew which fares slightly better, but that doesn't say much."
      • The quote shows "the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth".
    3. The CNA review notes: "What started as a childhood favourite dining place and an after-work supper option for the former advertising executive and his wife Tomoko morphed into a passion for seeking the best grilled beef in Japan and overseas with their foodie buddies. Each meal was reviewed and meticulously documented on their blog yakiniquest.com, which has become the grilled beef bible for those in the know. [Information about the restaurant's origins and beginning]"
      • The quote shows the author has "provide[d] broader context" about the restaurant's origins.
      4. The review notes: "For the S$128 “Appetite” omakase lunch, we tasted seven different cuts of beef. Besides the usual striploin and ribeye ... made crispy and slightly charred and paired with an unconventional dashi broth. The tender Australian beef tongue was ... which made it even more moreish. A dash of white pepper enhanced a lean shoulder cut, and ... We popped it in one mouthful and savoured the softness of the meat as its fragrant oils oozed into the grains. After that, a sweet dipping sauce with egg yolk transformed the “yakisuki” beef into a creamy party in the mouth."
      • The quote shows "the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth".
    4. The Time Out review notes: "Conquering an annual average of 150 yakiniku establishments across Japan since they started in 1998, they would religiously convene on the 29th of each month as “niku’ in Japanese not only translates to beef but also, the number 29. With such significance to their commitment, they have managed to cover over 2000 yakiniku restaurants till today and they aren’t stopping just yet – a fact that still leaves many bewildered."
      • The quote shows the author has "provide[d] broader context" about the restaurant's origins.
      5. The review notes: "This 64 seater includes four private dining enclaves with smokeless ceramic charcoal gas grills that offer more control to produce a finessed grilling outcome that retains the integrity of the choice cuts." The quote shows the author has provided a "description of the restaurant as a whole".

      The review notes, "Our favourite cuts were the striploin and the ribeye centre. The former saw thinly sliced well-marbled striploin grilled and served sukiyaki style with an umami-ladened sweet soy sauce and a luscious yolk for an overall slam dunk of a dish. While the latter was a thick slice of melt-in-your-mouth fatty meat served alongside a grated radish ponzu sauce to introduce some bright notes that help balance each unctuous bite."

      • The quote shows "the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth".
    All five sources have national or international readership or viewership. There is no support in
    WP:AUD) for the assertion that restaurant reviews cannot be used to establish notability when published in daily newspapers in the restaurant's region or nation. If editors would like this to be the case, they would need to change the guideline. Any restaurant that receives this depth of analysis and reporting about its history and food in national publications is notable under the notability guideline for companies.

    The restaurant reviews cover different aspects of the restaurant's origin story. It is understandable that restaurant reviewers would tell their readers about why the restaurant is called "YakiniQuest" because that is crucial to understanding the restaurant's yakiniku cuisine and history.

    I didn't see the same photographs in these two links but even if that were the case it does not make the sources non-independent. It would make only the photos part of the sources non-independent if they were provided by the restaurant. There is plenty of independent analysis of the restaurant as I've shown above.

    Cunard (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

The reason there are two of the same photo provided by the restaurant is that the restaurant did a photo shoot and started sending out press releases. Which also explains why so many of the articles that include those photos are from the same short period. In my mind there is a clear possibility this is paid advertising. Valereee (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because, yeah, this is how professional journalists write: "...which lit up flames of passion within the Ishida’s to spread their love of yakiniku with everyone." Yep. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Straits Times articles were published in 2015 and February 2022. The other articles were published in March 2022 and April 2022 which I view as a sufficiently long time period to be not from a brief burst of coverage. The quote has flowery language from an enthusiastic restaurant reviewer. I see no evidence that the author of the quote, Dawson Tan of Time Out, is an unprofessional journalist.

Accusing reputable journalists of undisclosed paid advertising is a very serious allegation to make. Is there any evidence that Hsueh Yun Tan of The Straits Times, Jaime Ee of The Business Times, Ah Yoke Wong of The Straits Times, Grace Ma of CNA, or Dawson Tan of Time Out or their publications have ever engaged in undisclosed paid advertising? Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... the CNA article is marked as an Advertisement. We can learn a bit from that. For example, we now know that the restaurant will pay for reviews. We can also that the restaurant will provide photos for the review. We can see that the review follows a particular format and mentions the story of the blog and how the founder/chef left his job, etc. All of these traits we can see in the other reviews too. We can see that in the other "reviews" that Photos were provided by the restaurant. We can see in the last reference from The Business Times the same interior photo that appeared in the CNA article. But to be honest, all of this is very obvious, I don't know why we're even having a discussion about these reviews. Even if we accept the the reviews are "independent", I still don't see why getting reviewed in a daily newspaper translates as notability. One of the Keep !voters above put forward the reason that it was unusual for restaurants to get reviewed - which is very odd considering that some of those publications, The Straits Times, have multiple reviews published on the same day. But again, so what? Millions of restaurants get reviewed every day. Being reviewed in daily newspapers doesn't make the restaurant notable. This is common or garden newspaper filler by and the examples above appear to follow a script and rely on photos provided by the restaurant so arguable not even intellectually independent.
HighKing++ 21:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The CNA article is not marked as an advertisement. The advertisement at the top refers to the advertisement at the top not the article. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be right. I was looking at the archive version and it just has the word "advertisement" at the top - but the "live" version doesn't. Also found this article which is marked as an Advertorial. But the rest of the points still hold up.
HighKing++ 11:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Neither of the Straits Times articles you linked are reviews. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/YakiniQuest&oldid=1182184360"