Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladstone Street Pizza

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone Street Pizza

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. The sources are either local or trivial, e.g. "GSP has been voted the best pizza in Portland by fans of PBS" turns out to be a list where anyone can add an entry[1]: "Submit your suggestions using the form at the bottom of the page and we’ll add it to the list." and thus has no value at all. The article in the Oregonian is a passing mention[2]. Local articles like this add very little, and this epitomizes why local articles don't count towards notability for companies. Which leaves us with one article from OregonLive, [3]. It hasn't made it into any books according to Google Books, it has very little impact in general, 49 GHits is absolute peanuts for a current North American subject, and GNews are the usual local things[4], many already included in the article. Fram (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, Companies, and Oregon. Fram (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're right, Fram, I completely misunderstood the purpose of the PBS page. My bad! I've removed and added a few more Oregonian articles as references. I wish you had shared concerns on the article's talk page before jumping to AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep per GNG and expand with additional detail. I can go into the Oregonian archives for a deeper dive; also, seems the business has had a few different names. We just went through this exercise at Imperial Bottle Shop & Taproom, which Fram nominated for deletion but was kept, expanded, and nominated for Good article status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article absolutely needs work, but it has some good sources and I support keeping it. As a Wikipedia inclusionist, I think we should work to make this article better, rather than simply flagging it for deletion. PickleG13 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A concern I have about keeping this is that virtually all restaurants and bars etc in areas served by local press are going to get routine mentions, often about their opening or a special menu etc. I would point to WP:AUD which states "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". We need to consider depth and significance of coverage as well. I'd be interested in hearing other editors views on this. AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very often in these discussions, I have to point out to editors that The Oregonian is not "of limited interest and circulation". The newspaper is the largest in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, and one of the few U.S. newspapers with a statewide focus. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the contents are not aimed at Oregon but only at Portland though[5], and other bits show the typical "we are about the whole state, but actually most interested in what's here in Portland" vibe many such sources have, like this article on "our favourite neighbourhood pizza's" in Portland. Fram (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to agree that The Oregonian is of limited interest/circulation. I've written dozens of Good articles about Portland restaurants, using similar sources (The Oregonian, Willamette Week, Eater Portland). I've also added a bit more to the article, which I think should be kept not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a GA has nothing to do with being a notable subject (even FAs have been deleted on that ground in the past). And I have said nothing about the circulation of the Oregonian, only that some of their content is explicitly labeled "Portland" and some is implicitly Portland-oriented (they wouldn't write about "our favourite neighborhood pizzzeias in Oregon". It is no coincidence that all sources for these Portland eateries are all Portland-based. Fram (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just agree to disagree. Time to let others decide the article's fate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Looking at Category:Pizzerias in Oregon, we have a staggering 28 entries from Portland already, plus 2 further articles about, oh, more pizzeria's from Portland. I know that Portland has a good eating culture, but the only other city and state with a category is New York, with 20 entries, and only 26 further pizzeria's for the whole US (excluding chains). That's 30 for Portland, and 46 for the remainder of the US... Fram (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, looking at Category:Pizzerias by country we have zero pizzeria articles for France, Germany, the UK, Canada and even Italy. So 30 pizzerias in Portland, a city of less than 700,000 people but zero in the birthplace of pizza. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your gripe is with a larger content gap, not my work related to Portland. People should be making entries for notable restaurants regardless of location. Also, some of the "Pizzeria" categories are new subcategories of "Italian restaurants" and just need to be populated. Again, has nothing to do with this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources of of local interest only for another generic neighborhood business and I echo AusLondonder's comment. The fact that the Oregonian also covers statewide and regional news has no relevance to its Portland dining section, which is intended for a local audience. There are now 439 articles in Category:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon and its subcategories (of which 118 are defunct, many like Portland Penny Diner and Tasty n Daughters failed within a few years as many in this industry do - unclear why Wikipedia should memorialize them), at rate of 1 in 1500 residents. Compare that to the city with the next most restaurant articles, Category:Restaurants in New York City with 312 (of which 79 are defunct), a rate of 1 in 28,000 residents, then Category:Restaurants in London with 168. The difference is not that Portland's restaurants are particularly significant or notable, it's that one person has decided that routine local coverage intended for locals to see the latest dining information is the basis for Wikipedia articles. Other cities do not need this level of articles either: have them for the most widely acclaimed or historic restaurants, not any and all that get entirely-expected local reviews and list entries. "The 'For the House' pizza has Italian sausage, mozzarella, arugula, and pecorino Romano cheese" Big whoop, it's not our place to highlight parts of http://gladstonepizza.com/menu. "The menu has also included local microbrews and a Caesar salad" WOW! Thank you for letting me know I can drink beer with pizza! Just because Willamette Week's blurb mentions that doesn't mean we need to; their "Cheap Eats 2011" had entries for 158 restaurants, but that doesn't contribute to notability for all of them. This is fluffed up with passing mentions like [6], which also attributes the area's "momentum" to a record shop, herb shop, and gallery, not just this and another restaurant. Then there's junk like "Erin DeJesus included GSP in Eater Portland's 2012 list of "The (Sweet) 16 Essential Pizzerias of Portland"" - the list doesn't even have a word about any of its entries! A few other lists like this that don't think Gladstone is "essential" include [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Websites like Eater, Thrillist, and Time Out and local alt-weeklies and even the main local paper around the world may churn out blurb after blurb, listicle after listicle, ranking after ranking, reader poll after reader poll about the local food scene, but without more substantive coverage with a broader audience, Wikipedia is not the place to compile what's included in these, even when paired with reviews that are routinely done for restaurants. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "... one person has decided that routine local coverage intended for locals to see the latest dining information is the basis for Wikipedia articles". I've promoted ~50 Portland restaurant articles to Good status. This sort of collaboration and review involves many other editors. We don't need to group all Portland restaurant articles together, let's please focus on this single entry in this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage. The above arguments about WP:OTHERSTUFF are irrelevant. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no space limit. If someone makes the effort to write good articles about Portland restaurants, why not keep them? NemesisAT (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NORG does specifically exclude local coverage though. Fram (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Echoing what NemesisAT stated above. I also want to add that the publications used in the article are not solely local. The Oregonian is the largest paper by circulation in Oregon and the second largest by circulation in the Pacific Northwest. To write it off as solely local is disingenuous. Also, why should article creator be punished for focusing their attention on a specific city? There's zero policies requiring someone to only create articles if there are similar numbers of articles in other cities. Definitely an OTHERSTUFF argument; lets focus on the notability of this establishment and this article. --Kbabej (talk) 18:27, 24 April 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.