Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Restaurant

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. Joyous! Noise! 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Restaurant

[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:NCORP. Local coverage only. Would need wider coverage to meet WP:AUD. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. IMO, topic is clearly notable and this is part of a continued effort by a few editors who are hounding me. Also, keep per talk page discussion (with User:Steven Walling), who previously removed tag added by The Banner. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NCORP under WP:AUD - appears to be a local restaurant that got no coverage at all outside its local area. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your assessment of the sources used in this version of the article, or all available coverage? I've added several book sources and will continue to expand as time allows. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has plenty of sources showing notability. No need for an Alexis Restaurant Massacree. Ann Teak (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep The subject was covered extensively by major news sources like The Oregonian for 30 years, and so there are plenty of exclusive sources that prove it is notable. This isn't just a random restaurant with only guidebooks or a few local reviews about it. Even the closure was covered by multiple sources as a notable event. 99% of restaurants don't get this kind of coverage and it obviously meets general notability and sourcing requirements. Steven Walling • talk 01:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most restuarants don't go in big for PR, but this restuarant does, which you seem to fail to recognise. scope_creep^Talk 12:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but no. The sources are highly reliable ones like the oldest newspaper on the West coast, and which have independent fact checking and editing. These are not press releases or paid shills. Steven Walling • talk 16:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does meet WP:AUD, which requires at least one non-local source. There are three by my count: one PNW source, one from California, and one published book. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUD. Even before Another Believer's expansion and addition of sources not located in Portland, it met WP:SIRS because The Oregonian is a statewide and regional source by circulation. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above and its well-sourced notability. You can get anything you want, at Alexis Restaurant. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above and its well-sourced notability. Okoslavia (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why all these nominations of subjects that pass the WP:GNG per ample sourcess? It wastes scarce community resources! gidonb (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of keep !votes with no examination of references. While a lot of folk state it passes WP:AUD, the lack of significance in the references absolutrly fails WP:SIRS, but no comment on that. Significance, not routine or generic is an important part of WP:SIRS in this instance. It is the intellectual depth of argument in the reference that prove WP:V, not the simplistic "oh I turned up, it must be notable so keep". I will go through them this weekend, the first block anyway. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:scope_creep, your WP:AUD claim has been refuted by User:Orange Suede Sofa and others. Instead of prolonging this discusion, why don't you withdraw and check better next time?! Errors happen. As long as we learn from these, it's no biggie. gidonb (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference promoted by Orange Suede Sofa is similar to another ref from the same restuarant. While it reads like a good WP:SECONDARY source, the fact there is more than one from the same restuarant but a diifferent person/author and both read in a similar manner, makes me think it is an affiliate marketing skit. I have no faith in the statements about that "The Oregonian", a small regional newspaper has been "reporting" on it for 30 years+. The stuff its printing in a regular and timely basis is paid for PR, like the rest of it. It is only pizza restuarant after all not the pentagon, and the fact that their is a vast and varied collection of references, for what is a "pizza restuarant" is again, a clear indicate its all crap PR and affiliate marketing junk and not genuine references. Regarding the article, it WP:PROMO and reads like a brochure advertising article and it not even the most egregious. They are hundreds of them in that directory that read like adverts. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Comments like it is only pizza restuarant after all not the pentagon are not based in policy. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza restuarants don't have coverage unless they pay for it. It was trying to make a comparison and to be honest, I was not making the comment for yourself or anybody else that's commented so far. scope_creep^Talk 19:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you confused this article about a closed Greek restaurant with the AfD for Post Alley Pizza? Is there any evidence for your assertion that "Pizza restuarants {sp!} don't have coverage unless they pay for it"? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed. I will fix it tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Steven Walling, others. The subject of this article closed in 2016 which has reference coverage, given they are no longer in primary operation (there is a mention of secondary operation) the potential for promotion seems low. Not seeing the harm in keeping this article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:41, 15 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.

Alexis Restaurant

zproxy.org