Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubinstein Bagels

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. I see a rought consensus to Keep. I recommend an policy talk page discussion on WP:AUD about regional vs. local coverage as it seems to be an issue that has come up repeatedly in recent AFD discussions. It seems like the guidelines could be a bit clearer since well-intetioned editors are interpreting this policy differently. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubinstein Bagels[edit]

[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)

Coverage seems entirely local as per WP:AUD. Does not meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Yet again, this is another nomination I must assume was initiated without even attempting to assess available coverage. A simple Google search shows Food & Wine said Rubinstein has some the nation's best bagels. Many sources are easily found, some of which I've already added to the article. I've asked this editor many times to share concerns on Talk pages before tagging articles and jumping to AfD unnecessarily. If the hounding could stop, that'd be great. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hounding. I have also nominated food places from Australia. Simply having "some of the nation's best bagels" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to take articles you've created personally when they've been nominated for deletion. Remember you don't WP:OWN any articles on WP. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly targeting me. Please leave me alone. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I'm not targeting you. Stop acting as if you WP:OWN articles you've created. We know you don't like articles being deleted, but if you're not willing to have articles placed under the scrutiny of deletion then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. So stop telling me to tell leave you alone and concentrate on actual deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me alone. Stop hounding me, stop tagging my entries, stop jumping to AfD, stop talking to me. I do not have ownership issues and very much welcome collaboration with editors who are actually here to build the encyclopedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me alone and stop your WP:ADHOM. Stop acting if you own these articles. You cannot ask another editor to stop nominating an article just because you own it. You even asked an administrator and she said she wouldn't follow your request. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing I wasn't allowed to nominate this restaurant? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyHigh Mount Dandenong? LibStar (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar, Skyhigh has no sources, arbuable or otherwise, while, as you know, all of Another Believer's pages that you are, ah, not targeting, have good and at-length sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this has good at length sourcing why have others !voted delete? I'm sure someone will just complain "I'm being targeted." LibStar (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not being targeted LibStar. The delete comments do not take regional coverage into consideration (see WP:AUD). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like very local and very routine coverage of a food outlet which we would not normally considered sufficient notability for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) I am striking this !vote because I have no wish to be involved in a personal battle between other editors. Do not use me or my comments or !votes as ammunition. JMWt (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the WP:AUD prong of WP:NCORP. Most of the coverage is indiscriminate coverage any local restaurant would receive, and the ones that aren't are local restaurant reviews. Nothing showing this was a long-term notable restaurant. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced and GNG compliant. Local restaurants are notable when sourced, and the only thing that should be considered as unusual here is that a Wikipedian took the time to write and source it. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD clearly states that more than local coverage is required. It could have a 1000 sources but that's not enough to establish notability, otherwise every local shop and restaurant that got a local review would have an article. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? Regional coverage is sourced on the page. WP:AUD does not apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I could get you to point me at the three sources you believe support a claim to notability? Valereee (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources found are in the Seattle Times or Seattle Eater, I'm not showing anything beyond confirmation they make good bagels. [1] is probably the best of them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (despite my disappointment that this is a different Rubinstein Bagels from the otherwise-forgotten one featured in various administrative law casebooks). It's hard to imagine a more straightforward example of significant coverage in regional media than Oaktree b's Pacific NW Magazine link above. Helpfully, WP:AUD addresses precisely this situation: significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. Just to eliminate any doubt as to whether a single regional source can suffice, the guideline goes on the specify that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary (emphasis in original). So we seem to be solidly in, even under an inflexibly literal reading of the guideline. There also seems to be no question that the CORPDEPTH requirement that it is possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization is met, based not only on subjective analysis of the sources but also the objectively well-cited state of the article. -- Visviva (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage by national sources such Salon.com, Vox media, & Food & Wine contradicts the statement Coverage seems entirely local. There are also regional sources from Portland, OR & Vancouver, BC. This definitely meets the WP:AUD test. Peaceray (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more, calm consideration, realizing that AFD discussions can get heated but to not take things personally. Focus on content, sourcing and policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on regional sources, the Seattle and Tacoma newspapers and other sourced media outlets (notice that this article is very well sourced) are sold and cover a wide international regional area in the NW United States and into Canada, thus meeting WP:AUD. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact a local paper has a large catchment area still makes the coverage local. SportingFlyer T·C 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AUD seems to be the bone of contention here, and it is met, as Seattle Times meets the criteria for regional coverage: (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) satisfying AUD. There also seems to be Tacoma coverage, which despites sharing an airport, is a different city. —siro χ o 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article, and obviously broad coverage from RS. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Looks ok to me. Nice job. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2023 (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.