Draft talk:Tom Aikens (restaurant)

Some remarks

This draft is mixing the articles about the person (chef) and the restaurant making an unclear split between the two articles. The section "Background" is about the chef, so is irrelevant in the article about the restaurant.
Extra info about the building after the closure of the restaurant is irrelevant.
The section about the theft is overly long.

So far my comments. The Banner talk 16:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your rejection

@Robert McClenon: Your rejection is the existence of the main article, right? I do intend to put the info there, but I wasn't sure whether the draft itself passes notability. I wonder whether you think the draft I made does. Actually, I did intend to redirect the main article to the chef one, but that was reverted. I wasn't sure whether the two-Michelin-starred restaurant itself deserves an article, notable or not. George Ho (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, see Talk:Tom Aikens. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho - I don't know what the question is. What are you asking me? There already is an article on the restaurant, and, in my opinion, a two-Michelin-starred restaurant deserves an article. There already is an article, Tom Aikens (restaurant). Your draft contains more information than the existing article, but Articles for Creation is not used to replace one article with another version. I have tagged the article to be updated with the information from your draft. I would encourage you to do the updating yourself. Articles do not edit themselves, but editors do edit articles. I do not think that the restaurant should be redirected to the chef. That would be a back-door deletion. If someone attempted to do that, it should be reverted. Am I answering your question? What was your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you did redirect the article on the restaurant to the chef, which was a back-door deletion, and that User:The Banner correctly reverted that action. Then you submitted this draft, which would expand the article on the restaurant. I agree that expanding the article is a good idea. That is why I tagged the draft to be merged into the article. You are an experienced editor. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know whether the restaurant is notable enough to guarantee a stand-alone article, especially if reviewed under AfC. If so, then I'll just make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, for which is what you were looking, right? George Ho (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, may you re-review the draft please, or would you have someone else do it? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho - No, I am not looking for a history merge request. This is not a case for a history merge. What I was requesting was that information in the draft be merged into the article. I apologize for apparently having confused you. I am not suggesting a history merge. There is no need or reason for a history merge.

You ask whether the restaurant is notable enough for a stand-alone article. I already tried to answer that, and I will try again. In my opinion, the restaurant is notable, and should have its own article, and it already does. I see no need to review the draft. There already is an article on the restaurant. If you think that the restaurant is not notable and that the article on the restaurant should be redirected or merged into the article on the chef, you can discuss that at the article talk page. You can nominate the article for deletion via Articles for Deletion. I would advise against doing that, but that is because I think that the article should not be deleted, merged, or redirected.

Maybe I still don't understand your question or questions. I have asked if another reviewer can try to explain to you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already discussed the restaurant's notability at Talk:Tom Aikens. I just had trouble writing an article about the restaurant named after the chef. I figured that a merger would resolve things because I thought expanding the restaurant article would be too much of a hassle, but I guess you and the other editor rejected the idea. Now I must expand further to prove how different the restaurant and the chef are. George Ho (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]