Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Shed Garden Cafe

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 no consensus‎. I took a few reads through this one, seeing if there was some way to arrive at a consensus, and it's just not there. At heart, there is a fundamental disagreement over whether the available reference material does or does not meet GNG, and neither side definitively overcame the arguments of the other. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Shed Garden Cafe[edit]

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

Tin Shed Garden Cafe (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)

Single, non-notable restaurant. All coverage is either routine from local sources or part of tourist guides for the area. Also per WP:NOTGUIDE. Willbb234 22:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. Willbb234 22:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per GNG. Sorry, but nominator's rationale is just plain inaccurate. There's sufficient secondary coverage in non-local sources and the restaurant has been featured in multiple national television programs. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? Willbb234 23:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the primary author listing the sources here that establish notability would make this a much easier "keep" !vote. Not necessary, but if there's going to be back-and-forth discussion, that's the thing that could cut it short most easily. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An overwhelming number of sources on the page are just lists of restaurants to dine at. Others are trivial mentions or are unambiguous advertisements. I'm not convinced that the presence of the restaurant in national television programs assists notability here. I'm not getting any notability establishing hits on an independent WP:BEFORE. —Sirdog (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this relevant to keep/delete? An "overwhelming" number (or any kind of number) of sources that are not sufficient doesn't speak to whether or not there are enough sources that are sufficiently in-depth/reliable. For instance, if an article had 100 sources, of which 95 are passing mentions, and 5 are in-depth coverage in reliable sources, that would be a clear "keep." The ratio has nothing to do with it; meeting a threshold of several strong sources is what we look for. (Note, I haven't reviewed the sources yet myself, and I'm not yet prepared to vote one way or the other.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reaching out! My phraseology was to indicate that most of the sourcing present are just lists, with the remainder being trivial mentions or advertisements (or otherwise not GNG compliant). I further indicate when trying to find sourcing myself that is complaint that I failed. I would certainly vote Keep if there were adequate complaint sourcing, regardless of the volume of inadequate sourcing. Though, given the attendance and discussion below, I'm probably going to review the sources again and try finding more again to ensure I didn't miss anything. —Sirdog (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. And especially thanks for the detailed table below. I do disagree on some of your assessments, but the specifics make it much easier to discuss. And that took a lot of work! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Between the variety of coverage in The Oregonian including [1], as well as the PBS "Breakfast Special" episode, and Food Network episode the subject seems very likely to meet CORP. Note some short coverage in NYT [2] which does not meet SIRS, but NYT is a strong signal. —siroχo 08:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Siroxo! Thanks for your analysis.
    I have a concern re. the piece in The Oregonian; it's attributed to "Special to The Oregonian", which largely publishes listicles. I'm not sure this has the same reliability as other pieces in that publication, and the intransparent attribution raises some red flags regarding editorial oversight and independence. I couldn't find any direct evidence that this is problematic, though.
    I can't verify anything about the TV episodes, but it's common for those to be influenced by or at least made in agreement with the business. The business owners sign releases to allow TV networks to air footage of their restaurant and show its branding (which is otherwise copyrighted, like any other work of art), so I don't think those meet the strict independence standards of WP:NCORP.
    As you mention, the NYT source does not provide significant coverage. At best, we have NYT and The Oregonian, and one SIGCOV source is not enough for WP:NCORP. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NCORP is written for businesses, not for cultural institutions. More is at play for restaurants, bars, and the like, and they often transcend individual organizations; names carry on, legacies, cuisines, etc. ɱ (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Variety of good sources including the NYT. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@No Swan So Fine: nobody's trying to make the point that good sources aren't present but rather that the sources are either not in depth (especially with regards to the tourist guide sources) or local. Even if there are national sources available, the coverage would still have to be in depth and from multiple sources, as outlined at GNG. Willbb234 22:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't disagree more: there's no attempt at creating a tourist guide, the category has many quality entries, and there's actually a group of editors working to delete entries unnecessarily. Maybe next time your vote can include a source assessment. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my source assessment: NONE of them meet the criteria in my !vote above. --woodensuperman 13:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Documented culture of Portland, Oregon. Nicely-written article. And like siroχo said above, this does pass NCORP. ɱ (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As mentioned above, the TV episodes are likely not independent sources for the purposes of WP:NCORP. I have some concerns re. The Oregonian (also explained above), but even if we accept that source, it's just one SIGCOV source, and that's simply not enough for the notability guideline. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, the goal posts are always changing for notability of restaurants. We've been through dozens of these lately, with most editors agreeing national TV coverage counts. Here there's evidence of multiple TV shows covering the restaurant, but now that's not enough... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. If there is widespread consensus on this TV coverage thing, particularly consensus outside of specific AfDs, I'm very willing to reconsider. However, from what I know about how the industry works, TV coverage can't be strictly independent, if nothing else then because it requires consent from the subjects, which compromises neutrality. Maybe we should open a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:NCORP? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Compromises neutrality? In this article, the TV programs are mentioned in passing and not used to verify specific claims made in the text. I don't think we need to be concerned about neutrality. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for article content, but independence is essential for sources intended to establish notability. I elaborated on that re. neutrality to demonstrate that independence is affected substantially by the legal requirements of making a TV episode about a business. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, but I must strongly disagree with your assessment, especially given the number of times I've seen national TV coverage used as a valid reason for keeping. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I watched the coverage here, and it don't think 5 minutes of excerpts from interviews with customers really does much in the way of establishing notability. Willbb234 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Willbb234: I just watched it as well and my impression is the opposite. The fact that this nationally-focused program chose to focus on breakfast in Portland, and that their primary interview (which you don't mention) -- the author of a book about breakfast in Portland -- chose to bring them to this particular restaurant. Five minutes is a pretty substantial amount of time for a news magazine piece, permitting a fair amount of depth. And at the end of the day it is customers who determine what restaurants succeed, fail, or become famous or renowned; vox pop journalism is a well-established practice for secondary sources. The reasons they chose to spoke to these individuals are made clear in the preamble and the way it's presented. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How you feel about one program's coverage doesn't change the fact that non-local outlets have shown an interest in the topic. Clearly the PBS coverage should be counted, as it is created by a major reputable (not to mention, publicly funded) outlet, specific to the topic, and geared for a general audience. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, these concerns should raise some eyebrows. Interviews with customers are certainly not up to the standards of WP:ORGCRIT, particularly with regards to reliability. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you don't count a PBS profile, there's Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. Surely coverage by an independently notable chef on an independently notable TV series broadcast by an independently notable national network counts? Again, splitting hairs when there's plenty more secondary coverage to consider as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion isn't about whether or not you believe restaurant articles desrve a place in an encyclopedia but whether there are sufficient reliable sources present, in the article or brought up in this discussion, to establish notability for this particular subject. Those arguing Keep have highlighted several they believe do serve that purpose, it would be helpful if those who believe this article should be Deleted reviewed those sources or made specific, rather than general comments about the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based primarily on the TV episodes. The idea that the coverage is not independent because the restaurant cooperates is, frankly, silly; that's like saying that we can't count interviews toward notability because the subject cooperated in agreeing to do the interview. That the shows chose the restaurant to cover is a sign that they consider it worthy of note. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strong local and independent coverage. Salsakesh (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The following is my personal assessment of the sources as present in the article. I couldn't find any additional sourcing with another WP:BEFORE. I'm happy to discuss any sources that may not be here or errors in the table.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirdog
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
References 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 20-23, 34, 37-49, and 51 of Special:PermaLink/1171076823 No List of restaurants to dine at with insufficient commentary and/or commentary is an advertisement and/or is listed as a winner or runner up in a user generated poll ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=-xEA_1nkxcAC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA91&dq=%22Tin+Shed%22+portland&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Tin%20Shed%22%20portland&f=false Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ER8lDXYUE (coverage by PBS) Yes No Entirety of footage is customer / author of book interviews regarding the restaurant Yes ✘ No
https://www.wweek.com/restaurants/2016/07/12/dogs-can-now-get-ice-cream-headaches-thanks-to-portlands-best-dog-menu/ Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
https://www.fastcompany.com/1662936/creative-destinations-portlands-artisan-culture-is-in-full-bloom Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.thrillist.com/venue/eat/portland/restaurants/tin-shed Yes No Effectively a promotional advert for the restaurant with no neutral commentary ~ ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=NKXaCwAAQBAJ&dq=%22Tin+Shed+Garden+Cafe%22&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q=%22Tin%20Shed%20Garden%20Cafe%22&f=false Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
https://www.portlandmercury.com/music/2003/06/12/29199/live-music-listings Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/travel/01surfacing.html Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/galleries/LUK3ZS5RCND63NWSQCCPKRQYHI/ Yes Yes No Repeats the same sentence over and over that Yelp says it's No. 1, trivial ✘ No
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-8615-tin-shed-garden-cafe.html Yes No Effectively a promotional advert for the restaurant with no neutral commentary ~ ✘ No
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-12046-breakfast-of-champions.html Yes ? No Name check ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/may/27/portland-oregon-city-guide-best-hotels-restaurants-bars Yes No Effectively a promotional advert for the restaurant with no neutral commentary ~ ✘ No
https://www.streetroots.org/news/2020/06/17/portland-restaurants-aim-cut-waste-recyclable-and-compostable-take-out-containers-go Yes Yes No Name check x2 ✘ No
https://www.portlandmercury.com/articles/2005/07/28/34167/a-shed-ahead ~ ~ It reads promotional in nature, but there is some neutral commentary, so ultimately I'm torn. Not great, regardless. Yes ~ Partial
https://www.oregonlive.com/life_and_culture/erry-2018/07/d722f284e58631/27_oregon_restaurants_guy_fier.html Yes Yes No Not WP:SIGCOV coverage in list of restaurants reviewed by Guy Fieri ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/life-and-culture/g66l-2019/02/293c802ca2620/these-are-the-portland-restaurants-guy-fieri-visited-on-diners-driveins-and-dives.html Yes Yes No Not WP:SIGCOV coverage in list of restaurants reviewed by Guy Fieri ✘ No
https://www.foodnetwork.com/shows/diners-drive-ins-and-dives/episodes/comfort-and-soul Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/movies/2010/07/pbs_documentary_breakfast_spec.html Yes Yes No Fails WP:SIGCOV, name checked throughout ✘ No
https://pdx.eater.com/2010/7/12/6726897/tin-shed-and-helsers-on-pbs-portobellos-vegan-pizza-to-go Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2010/03/portland_still_grapples_with_s.html Yes Yes No Coverage is minimal in relation to entirely different topic ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2009/12/breakfast_tin_shed_vs_helsers.html Yes Yes I share Actualcpscm's concerns regarding the lack of attribution and the category being dedicated to mostly listicles, but not enough to deny this reliability for this table. Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2023/08/this-portland-restaurant-is-the-most-dog-friendly-dining-experience-in-the-country.html Yes Yes No Not really much more than an announcement that Tin Shed was No. 1 on Yelp with minimal commentary; it's borderline but I think it fails WP:SIGCOV here. ✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/life-and-culture/g66l-2019/04/d239d52fc09018/the-ultimate-guide-to-portlands-40-best-brunches.html Yes Yes No Name check ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=ijt8DwAAQBAJ&dq=%22Tin+Shed+Garden+Cafe%22&pg=PT271#v=onepage&q=%22Tin%20Shed%20Garden%20Cafe%22&f=false Yes Yes No This is a book dedicated to discussing restaurants to eat at. 2 paragraphs are given to the Tin Shed. However, in other sections, such as "Po'Shines Cage De La Soul" and "My Fathers Place", they are given significantly more content. Tin Shed's coverage is not comparable, unfortunately. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—Sirdog (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to sway the delete voters, but for the record I would count both the PBS episode and the Food Network as appropriate national coverage. I'd recommend checking the Oregonian archives, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that you dumped the Unique Eats... book into the first row suggests you've dismissed some good coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the call out regarding Unique Eats, that doesn't meet my rationale for the first row and has been given a separate row at the bottom. —Sirdog (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'll have to continue agreeing to disagree and let others take over from here. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting this together! I agree with most of it, and The Oregonian on its own is not enough for GNG anyway. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 07:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete based on present state of article.
    The sourcing that has been discussed so far is already enough to justify a keep if it were used properly; I'll point out a few strong disagreements with the table, below. In addition, most of the 20 hits on "Tin Shed" in the Oregonian archives (which are probably behind a paywall for most Wikipedia editors) are strong sources, as well as the book "Breakfast in Bridgetown," which are not included in the article or in this discussion, make points that go directly to notability, but that are not mentioned in this article.
    E.g., the Tin Shed is often used as exemplifying Portland brunch, in discussions of other brunch spots. The length of its lines is mentioned in articles not about this restaurant. The business acumen of owners whose instincts told them that the neighborhood was about to undergo a change is discussed as a dimension of gentrification. Etc etc. But none of that is discussed in the article. I don't understand why we're spending time on an AfD when the article could simply be improved, now or at any point in the last decade. On the specific sources, though:
    • PBS "Breakfast Special": This exemplifies the kind of source that should be used for an article like this. Coverage of an effective, consumer-facing business, exploring why it is popular, is supposed to be based on stuff like a book author's expertise and the perspective of its customers. PBS is a longstanding journalism organization with clearly articulated editorial standards and an extensive track record. There should be no argument on this one, it's exactly the kind of source Wikipedia is supposed to be built on. Furthermore, the fact that PBS covered it is covered by other reliable sources, like the Oregonian, further lending weight to this source.
    • Same is basically true of the Oregonian, Willamette Week, Mercury, and Guardian. The idea that something "reads as promotional in nature" is not the standard we go by; the big concern for something like this is sponsored content, and there's no reason to think any of these organizations would jeapordize their reputations over a little brunch joint. If a place is noted for its popularity and cultural impact, those are real factors, but they are subjective in nature; we shouldn't expect peer reviewed scientific scholarship to evaluate the popularity of restaurants.
    • The two paragraphs in the "Unique Eats" book are substantive, and there's no reason to compare it to other restaurants the book happens to spill more ink on. Significant points (that could be, but are not, articulated in the Wikipedia article) are made.
    • Number 1 Yelp rating, while not significant in and of itself, becomes significant when it is mentioned by multiple reliable secondary sources. I would add a line to the table for the Yelp review, and consider that qualifying, because it's been mentioned in more rigorous sources. Even if their methods are questionable (?),the impact of a Yelp review can have a big impact on a business's reputation and popularity.
    • No comment on the other source evaluations, I haven't reviewed them in detail.
      -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peteforsyth I don't understand. You've said there's enough sourcing to justify keep, but voted delete? I would add Breakfast in Bridgetown as a citation, but the book's contents are not searchable at Google Books. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Another Believer: If you had to state why the Tin Shed is significant in a sentence or two, what would it be? If you put that in the lead section, and attach it to strong sources already in the article, I'll change my !vote. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Breakfast in Bridgetown's 2011 edition also mentions the Tin Shed, and is borrowable/searchable at archive.org. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What else do you think the lead should say? I've added the location, co-owners, year of establishment, TV show appearances, positive reception, and Yelp ranking in national list. The lead also notes that the business is lesbian-owned and dog-friendly, which are both unique. I've added mention of Breakfast in Bridgetown to the article body, without actually adding the book as a citation. (This is possible because of the additional coverage about the book, as you've noted above. Thanks for taking a look at coverage and flagging issues with the source assessment table.) So far, I'm not having luck finding a way to search the book contents at archive.org, if you're able to share a direct URL or add a citation for me? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as well, Pete Forsyth, given your comments above about the sources available, I'm surprised you arrived at "Delete". Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make points on both sides, and in so doing I probably made myself hard to follow. Apologies. My concern is not with the sourcing, I wanted to make clear why I think the sourcing is perfectly fine, and could easily be improved. But the improvements needed are to the content of the Wikipedia article itself. I think it can easily be addressed, e.g., by replacing the two places in the article that mention the mere fact that PBS covered it with a clear, concise summary of what the PBS show said about the restaurant and why it's significant. Bottom line, to me, is I see an article that seems to fail our criteria for speedy deletion, by not articulating the significance of the restaurant...and in so doing, it fails the reader, who is probably trying to learn something about the city, or the neighborhood, or the phenomenon of brunch, etc. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth I'm happy to continue discussing specific article changes (though I'd prefer to do this on the article's talk page), but to avoid further confusion, can you change your vote to keep if you feel this topic is notable? Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put some suggestions on the talk page. I'm not watching this page or that one, if you make changes you want me to look at feel free to ping. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth Thanks for the suggestions. Very helpful! I'll ask one last time if you're willing to change your vote to keep, given your comments on notability/sourcing and interest in seeing this article improved, not deleted. Either way, thanks again for the feedback here and on the talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the numerous sources from guidebooks, restaurant review sites, etc. we have exclusive coverage from the paper of record in the entire state, The Oregonian which covered the restaurant because it was ranked the #1 restaurant in the country for a unique category. In other words, it's nationally notable. The volume and depth of coverage goes way beyond your average restaurant that gets a local review or two, which makes it clearly notable as a business. Some editors seem biased against restaurants being notable, no matter how much reliable sourcing is provided. Steven Walling • talk 04:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was named the "No. 1 restaurant in the country for dog-friendly dining" on Yelp. You've got to be fucking kidding me if you think that's good enough to make something "nationally notable". Oh, and the relevant source [3] provides some really in depth and significant coverage, doesn't it? Come up with better rationale. Willbb234 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may view Yelp as just some dumb user-review restaurant site or app, but it's a global corporation that influences restaurants immensely, and has a ton of data. Using that data, it was determined that of all hundreds of thousands of restaurants for dog-owners to visit in the United States, this is the top-rated to appeal to that clientele group. That is significant. As of 2022, 44.5% of U.S. households own dogs. This is a significant entity to that demographic of tens to hundreds of millions of people. ɱ (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yelp ratings alone don't mean anything and can't be used as a source. The coverage in major newspapers because of the rating is what matters. This is notability 101. Steven Walling • talk 23:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point also. Unless I've hit a paywall, the Oregonian source has such little information that it's well off the 'significant' criteria outlined at GNG. Willbb234 11:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you hit a paywall. ɱ (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are eight different citations to The Oregonian. Just one of them has 300+ words specifically on Tin Shed. Steven Walling • talk 06:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one? No more? That doesn't meet GNG. Try again. Willbb234 17:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. You don't seem to understand the basic criteria of the specific guideline about notability of companies/organizations. The subject "is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." There are, point blank, multiple reliable sources that cover the subject. Some of them are more significant than others, and some of them are more reliable than others. When assessing notability, we look at the big picture of all sources together. Steven Walling • talk 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified above and the significance of this restaurant that becomes apparent through the same sources. I can't but feel sorry about all the hours that were spent in the discussion above, instead of more important work that gets postponed in the article space. gidonb (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you a lot of time has been wasted discussing restaurant articles at AfD unnecessarily. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are way too many AfDs with poor argumentation. Typically these are done by the dabater type of editors, who focus on one policy or guideline while neglecting others. These end up being huge wastes of time. The intro doesn't convince at all and then the nominators create lengthy discussions, tables, and often also drama. We need to protect WP against this. gidonb (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb I've been flagging issues for over a year, and yet the deletion nominations continue, often indiscriminately and/or by repeat nominators. I could easily supply links to 100+ deletion attempts, of which I can think of a handful which actually resulted in article deletion. If you have any ideas for solutions, I'm all ears. Otherwise, this circling of the drain will seemingly never end. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, THIS IS MY NEW PROPOSAL. We need to create a system where moderators pre-screen each and every AfD, as they already do with prodding. As I see it, a template would appear at the article that it is pre-AfDd, with the intro already in it (these are long so collapsed). Then a moderator squad at the touch of two buttons will reject with rationale or put the AfD into motion. This proposal has the potential to save Wikipedia from collapsing as a project. No less than that, as the current situation is EXTREMELY problematic. gidonb (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with universal pre-screening—as we've seen at Articles for creation—is that it instantly creates a huge backlog. There aren't enough admins to review everything up front in a timely manner. A simpler approach would be to create a better proposal for Wikipedia:Notability (restaurants), which failed and which leaves us with WP:CORP that is hopelessly broad. The lack of a clear policy is what leaves it open to perpetual argument. Steven Walling • talk 17:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the relevant example is the pre-screening of prods. That works really well as excellent articles would just dissapear when no one would notice the prod. Even today the procedure is WIDELY abused but to little avail. There are huge gains to be made through mergers and especially by editing more in the article space. We do not get to that enough as people keep submitting and mass-submitting all these baseless AfDs. It only gets worse over time. TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW!!!! gidonb (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you mean more one-sentence "articles" like Semilla? We need less of that, not more. Reywas92Talk 13:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your preference to delete stubs about Michelin-starred restaurants perfectly demonstrates part of the problem... ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, it's not a pleasant comment and highly misleasing. Right under me making the case for MORE mergers and LESS afds, you address me about an article I have not edited and on which I have not expressed an opionion. In my book, short articles, also of notable subjects, should always be considered for mergers, as their content may fit elsewhere without creating situations of undue, while reducing fragmentation and repetition at WP. The existence of short articles STRENGTHENS the case I made against excessive AfDs, as our priorities are wrong and the amount of AfDs has become insane. I explain this RIGHT ABOVE your comment. gidonb (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, effort should be put into merging short articles and expanding in existing articles or lists, not creating sub-stubs. But AFDs may be appropriate if there's not a good merge target or users can't make articles with more than a couple sentences in the first place. Reywas92Talk 04:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One man's "sub-stub" is another one's article ripe for expansion. The first version of Noma, the restaurant rated best in the world five times over, was three sentences when it was started. Steven Walling • talk 06:05, 22 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tin_Shed_Garden_Cafe&oldid=1172298648"