Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Bottle Shop & Taproom

Add links
From 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Bottle Shop & Taproom[edit]

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

Imperial Bottle Shop & Taproom (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)

Fails WP:NORG. We now have more than 150 articles on Portland restaurants and bars, but not all of them seem to be really notable. This one fails the WP:AUD (audience) test, as the sources are all local, and most of them not very indepth either (the 15 March 2022 "closing" article is the exception, it is local but is an actual article instead of a short, gushing promo mention like this). Fram (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator who saved a stub before bed last night, perhaps too soon). There's plenty of coverage and I've expanded the article further this morning. Next time try some Google searching before nominating a page for deletion? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gee, I never thought of that, Google searching? Then I would have found your additions: more articles from the local Willamette Weekly, from the local Eater Portland, and ... that's it, right? Instead of attacking the nominator on such spurious grounds, you can perhaps explain how this meets NORG? Fram (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: "that's it, right?" Nope! I'll let others take over from here. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      While you are of course not obliged to put up anything resembling a decent defense of your article, just making empty statements is really not helpful. The addition of soures like this one from the Willamette Week are more padding than anything else, for an article that already reads way too much like an advert instead of an encyclopedic article ("The Fruitcake Delight had barleywine mulled with ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg and turbinado sugar, and was garnished with rum-soaked raisins and currants. The glühwein had pinot noir from Coopers Hall mulled with cinnamon, anise, and turbinado sugar, and was garnished with clove." and so on). Having the Oregonian as a source could be an improvement, until one actually looks at the article[1]. Basically, you've added many references, but haven't done anything to actually address the reason for this deletion nomination either in the article or here. Fram (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The language you've deemed promotional is similar to the text I've drafted for approximately 40 articles about Portland restaurants I've promoted to GA status. Restaurant articles should have descriptions of the menu and specific items, when coverage allows. You may not think Eater Portland and Willamette Week (a Pulitzer-winning publication, by the way) are sufficient, but these are appropriate for Wikipedia, as are the Portland Mercury, Thrillist, and The Oregonian. There are plenty of other sources to fold into this entry, and I'm not even counting the beer-related sources. I'm less familiar with which beer publications are preferred on Wikipedia, but I've found lots of mentions at various beer sites and the business has won many awards at beer competitions. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Somehow, I don't think they won their Pulitzer for their restaurant reviews. Anyway, none of this addresses the failure to meet NORG (and no, a very passing mention in the Oregonian doesn't help). I never said that these sources are not appropriate for Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that they are sufficient to establish notability for this bar / shop. That borderline copyvio "recipes" have been accepted in GAs is perhaps more telling about the GA process than anything else, but changing "Momokawa Sake gets mulled with clove, orange, and honey and is served hot with a jasmine tea bag infusion." to "Momokawa Sake mulled with clove, honey, and orange, served hot with a jasmine tea bag infusion" is not something we should encourage in any way, nor is changing "mulled with ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg and turbinado sugar, and garnished with rum-soaked raisins and currants." to "mulled with ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg and turbinado sugar, and was garnished with rum-soaked raisins and currants" acceptable[2]. Fram (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Quibbles with specific text can be addressed on the article's talk page. This is a notability discussion. I'm still working to expand the article, using various sources. Further improvements are welcome, of course. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't feel a need to comment further here. In my opinion, you did not perform a thorough search before nominating the article for deletion. Per WP:BEFORE, you might consider adding a tag or starting a talk page discussion before jumping straight to AfD. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Your opinion would be worth more if you had anything to support this. You didn't provide a single source to this AfD, and the sources you added to the article are either more of the same, or passing mentions. If you want to accuse me of not doing a "before" search, show us what I missed that such a search would have returned. It is any of the 68 Google hits[3], or is it the articles from Willamette Weekly which you already added to the article[4]? The article as it stands now is still just as much an AfD candidate as the article at the time I nominated it. Fram (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eater Portland, Willamette Week, Portland Mercury, Thrillist, and The Oregonian are all acceptable sources and have been used dozens of times by the article creator to create GA articles on Portland-area restaurants and bars. If the AfD nominator has a problem with articles using those sources, an AfD is not the venue to raise it. Also, like Another Believer, I am not familiar with beer-related sources, but there are articles from The New School with bylines that seem to be in depth here and here that could be incorporated if the sourcing is deemed appropriate. --Kbabej (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which article from the Oregonian has more than a passing mention? Being a GA is not a badge of immunity, we have even had FAs which have been deleted at AfD, as these look at completely different things. You don't explain how these local sources are acceptable (as the only sources) per WP:NORG. Thank you for providing these NewBeer sources, but a Portland-based webmagazine, with articles from authors living in Portland, may not be the best source either, as it has the same issues but from lesser-known sources. Fram (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The New School sources I listed cover Oregon and Washington, which is easily found on their about page. I haven't done a thorough assessment of the source, but even if the source is Portland-based with authors from Portland, that wouldn't really matter. You realize the Portland Metro area has 2.5 million people, right? Being "Portland-based" is very different than being a local paper like the The Yachats Gazette from Yachats (population ~690). Kbabej (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it is unlikely that we would have articles on 150 restaurants from Yachats... City papers / blogs / ... writing about city restaurants (pubs, shops, ...) is a natural thing, but it has been agreed by consensus that unless other (non-local) sources have given significant attention to those companies, we shouldn't have articles on them. That Portland has both a thriving culinary and a thriving journalistic culture is hardly a reason to make an exception to this. Fram (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you might be confusing what "local" means. Portland is a metropolitan area and the state's largest population and urban center; it's not some village or an sleepy town on the coast. As for your "agreed by consensus" point, I have yet to see a policy/guideline that states sources must be outside the area they are covering. Are you referencing WP:LOCALINT? If so, that is a failed proposal, and WP:LOCAL is only an essay.
      As a friendly reminder, it is also not required (or even expected) that you reply to every point made on this AfD (see WP:BLUDGEON - again, just an essay). --Kbabej (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      On the other hand, an AfD is meant to be a discussion, and no one is forced to reply to me either (although of course you are welcome to). And no, I understand perfectly well what "local" means, and there is no cutoff point which means that a restaurant written about in the newspaper of a 50,000-pop city is not notable, but a restaurant in a larger city is notable if written about by the city newspaper(s). Fram (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fram Thoughts on American Craft Beer? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly agree much of what Kbabej has said. I believe that WP:LOCAL does not apply here; the article easily meets all three criteria listed at the bottom (sufficiently long, contain appropriate information, and reasonably well-referenced). Further, many of the sources listed are regional, making WP:AUD inapplicable. Fram, if you can provide a link to the consensus you mentioned above that even more sources are needed, that might make me reconsider, but currently I do not think the policies mentioned are being applied correctly. Finally, just because some of the sources are technically lists doesn't make them any less significant, because they generally are accompanied with a solid chunk of text about the subject (e.g. [5]). Toadspike (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:LOCAL is an essay, I gave links to actual guidelines (which is the consensus). I'm not clear which of the sources you consider "regional": in any cases, I don't claim that more sources are needed per se, but "better" ones (for the sake of notability), sources showing that this shop/pub has received attention beyond the Portland incrowd. Your final point doesn't seem to address anything I said, some of the sources have more text (although this kind of gushy prose is hardly a source we should use in any case, not very journalistic). Fram (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      At risk of sounding immature, I know LOCAL is an essay, but the preceding discussion mentioned the word, so I thought I should touch on it. My final point does indeed not address anything you said, that was more a note for myself and in case anyone raised those concerns in future, and I understand your argument that it’s not the best source material regardless.
      Other than that, I will repeat my response to Reywas92 here as well: We have a different understanding of what’s “local” and what’s “regional”. In your opinion, the “Portland in-crowd” is local; in my opinion it’s regional. The consensus you are directing me to (AUD) only has a wikilink to an unsourced and sparse section of Newspaper to define “regional”, which leaves this all very ambiguous. I think we need a way to find broader community consensus for this definition, rather than having the five of us continue bashing it out when we clearly disagree on what the policy says. Toadspike (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A Portland-based news source covering a Portland restaurant is in fact local and these do not go beyond WP:AUD. Although the Portland metro could be considered a "region", that does not excuse that these reviews and routine bits on local businesses are written for people who live in the vicinity. The New York Times' reviews of New York City restaurants would likewise be considered local even though it's a national news source. Reywas92Talk 18:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they may be written for people who live in the vicinity, but there are a lot of people who live in the vicinity, hence my opinion (reflected by Kbabej above) that the newspapers used are regional sources. I think we have a different understanding of the distinction between “local” and “regional”. This might require raising to RfC or some other avenue for generating consensus, because as it stands WP:AUD is not clear at all. Toadspike (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (disclosure : I came here because I have watchlisted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer) Merge with Portland, Oregon#Cuisine and breweries. While I can find a number of news sources, they all seem to be local news sources, and I'd really want to see significant coverage in at least national sources before thinking it would be appropriate to write a spin-off article, as opposed to a short paragraph in the main one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose to merge as proposed. Doing so would give way too much weight to one business over the many, many similar businesses in the city. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how much information is contained in non-local sources. If there is none, then maybe a name-check is all that could be merged. As a counter-example, consider Bluewater (shopping centre), which states "The centre employs 7,000 people and serves over 27 million visitors a year" (in context, 27 million is about 40% of the entire UK population) which is a clear and verifiable claim of regional, if not national importance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose this merge; if deleted, this article should be redirected or deleted, not merged, per Another Believer. Even a passing mention at Portland, Oregon#Cuisine and breweries would be out of place, looking at the amount of restaurants in Portland: {{Restaurants in Portland, Oregon}} — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 02:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 31 March 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/Imperial_Bottle_Shop_%26_Taproom&oldid=1081583765"