This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
@
The Banner: I was
bold, but you can revert it back. However, in my view, even a Michelin-starred restaurant's notability may not guarantee a well-expanded article or the sufficient quality (even if not GA) needed. Also, I want the description about the restaurant to be brief as possible but also concise. However, I am uncertain whether any reliable sources, even reviews, would bring any worthwhile info about the eponymous restaurant. With absence of MoS guidelines about restaurants, I figured that the restaurant article would be better merged to the chef one. I may stand corrected, nonetheless. --
George Ho (
talk)
16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I think the restaurant article must be merged into the eponymous chef one. I thought about expanding the restaurant article in the
draft version. However, I thought the background and the history of the restaurant would be very similar to the chef article, and reception wouldn't make any difference. I'm disgruntled about the revert of the redirection of the restaurant article, even when the restaurant earned two Michelin stars in 2000s. --
George Ho (
talk)
22:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Very bad idea to merge two subjects that are both notable. The article about the restaurant should only and only focus on the restaurant itself. De section "Background" is irrelevant, as it is not about the restaurant. What happened with the building afterwards is also irrelevant. The Bannertalk10:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your concerns about the "Background" section of the draft, but it is needed because the eponymous chef himself is part of the restaurant.
No offense, but I find your interpretation of what's relevant to a restaurant or a chef too rigid. Too much rigidity, especially of your interpretations, would affect readers' understanding of an article and its topic. Not just that, too much rigidity would affect article quality and result in so-so articles IMO.
I have to reinsert the post-closure info especially because it's a relevant info, even for an article about the chef who gave up his eponymous restaurant. However, you repeatedly reverted the reinsertion. Now I'll be going around circles trying to convince you that the post-closure info is needed.
Also, the "spoon" incident is one that I would like included unless you were thinking
WP:NOTNEWS. Well, that incident is part of (what I think) the chef's infamy. Well, that's since the incident at Pied a Terre.
George Ho (
talk)
15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It is essential that you split the info into the right articles. Info about the man in
Tom Aikens, info about the restaurant in
Tom Aikens (restaurant). Avoid mingling the two.
Unfortunately, mingling is what you do. Effect is that both articles loose focus and are in need of a rewrite.
Irrelevant to you, but the post-restaurant info is essential to readers who would like to know what happened afterwards. One or two sentences would be enough. The same can be said about brief pre-restaurant info (i.e. Marlborough Arms). Also, mingling isn't much of an issue to me, but the chef's actions have affected his own reputation and his own restaurant. That's why I mingled, but that doesn't mean I lose focus. Seriously, how much have you known this man and his restaurants?
George Ho (
talk)
17:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Still an essay (but worth reading) and two how-to guides. An info not being related to the chef shouldn't be a primary reason to remove the post-closure info about the building. What about
WP:IAR?
George Ho (
talk)
18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It looks like, while this is a discussion of notability, the critical question regarding notability has not been addressed: Is there, or is there not, a substantial quantity of independent and reliable source material about the restaurant available? As it stands, the material available in
the restaurant article is extremely thin. As of this revision:
[1], the first source is about a completely different restaurant and just mentions that the Aikens one used to be at that location, the second source is about a different restaurant and doesn't even mention it, the third site doesn't exist and appears to be non-independent in any case, and the fourth site is just the restaurant's own website. Unless substantially better and in-depth sourcing about the restaurant can be found, it is not notable and the merge needs to be reinstated.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
The Banner and
Robert McClenon: I plan to merge the draft version into the existing one soon. @The Banner: You can make edits after the merger to address your concerns; would that do? @Robert: Any comments before going ahead?
George Ho (
talk)
23:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
User:George Ho - What do you plan to merge? Do you plan to merge the restaurant article and the restaurant draft? If so, good. Do not merge either of the versions of the restaurant with the article on the chef.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
23:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
There is no need to worry about the notability of the restaurant. I have never seen a one star restaurant that failed the notability guidelines, not to mention two Michelin stars. But as Robert McClenon already states: do not mingle chef en restaurant.
Other advice: the accolades deserve a better overview as a list. And review the menu. You state that is was seasonal, so the menu you give was there just a moment in time. I doubt if this snapshot is relevant. The Bannertalk00:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
In October 2004, a businesswoman Sarah Roe and her husband Rupert paid
£536 for the meal after entertaining her clients. As the Roes and her clients were leaving the restaurant, Aikens blocked the doorway and accused her of stealing one of his £16 custom-made silver teaspoons. A waiter found the spoon on a nearby table. Aikens still accused Roe, prompting her to boycott Aikens's restaurants.[1][2][3] Prior to the incident, nine such spoons had been stolen within at least one month. When the restaurant opened, several £50-ashtrays were stolen until non-smoking policy was applied a while later.[3]
^Marsh, Stefanie (15 October 2004). "Michelin chef causes a stir as he accuses diner with £500 bill of stealing a teaspoon". The Times. p. 3.
ISSN0140-0460.
ProQuest319180169.
Shall the "spoon" incident be mentioned in the article again? If so, shall the above passage be used? If not, how else can info about the incident be written?
George Ho (
talk)
03:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The post-closure info (i.e. Elystan Street) about Aikens's
eponymous restaurant was removed twice as "irrelevant" (
version 1,
version 2). Shall the post-closure be mentioned again? If neither version, yet you favour reinsertion, how else can the post-closure info be (re)written?
George Ho (
talk)
03:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
A chef
Phil Howard, months after selling and leaving
The Square, and Howard's business partner Rebecca Mascarenhas opened the restaurant Elystan Street at the former site of Aikens's eponymous restaurant on 27 September 2016.[1] Elystan Street earned its first Michelin star in October 2017.[2]
The site would be transformed into a Michelin-starred restaurant Elystan Street, owned by chef
Phil Howard and business partner Rebecca Mascarenhas, since its opening on 27 September 2016.[1][2]
Shall the post-closure info be mentioned again? Why or why not? If so, shall either version be used? If neither, then how else can the post-closure info be (re)written?
George Ho (
talk)
03:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
How's (this) version 3: "The site was relaunched in September 2016 under chef
Phil Howard as Elystan Street." I already did that at the draft version of the restaurant article.
George Ho (
talk)
17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Never mind. I made subsequent changes into (this) version 4: "The site was transformed in September 2016 into Elystan Street under chef
Phil Howard and business partner Rebecca Mascarenhas." By the way, I do think the site is still relevant to the restaurant.
George Ho (
talk)
17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
How's this statement: "The post-closure info (i.e. Elystan Street) about Aikens's
eponymous restaurant was removed twice as "irrelevant" (
version 1,
version 2). Shall the post-closure be mentioned again? If neither version, yet you favour reinsertion, how else can the post-closure info be (re)written?"
George Ho (
talk)
17:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply