Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Askatu Bakery


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I don't see a resolution here in a dispute on whether or not a source should be considered local or regional. Before considering sending this article on a return trip to AFD (that could easily be a repeat of this discussion), I encourage a discussion on an appropriate policy talk page that can hash out the prime sticking point which is whether or not newspapers that are not national in scope can be considered adequate sources to establish GNG for an article subject. Does it rest on the circulation numbers? The size of their coverage area? Come to an understanding about this first before nominating similiar articles which will start another repeat unresolvable dispute that wears out the main participants. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Askatu Bakery

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

All the coverage supplied and what I found in a gnews search is local Seattle coverage. Fails GNG due to WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Please stop targeting me. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not. Do you say the same thing for an Australian restaurant article I recently nominated for similar reasoning? LibStar (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I also nominate a lot of Indian school articles, am I targeting their creators? LibStar (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I nominate a large variety of articles on various topics, the article creator is not a consideration when nominating, the only consideration is notability. I know you wish I would disappear off Wikipedia but I've been here over 16 years. Plus the deletion process is a valid part of Wikipedia. If you don't want "your" articles deleted perhaps create your own wiki of every restaurant and cafe that existed in the USA. You could even design it where it would be impossible to delete an article. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please leave me alone. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please leave me alone and stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. If you choose to reply, I will take it you wish to continue discussion. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are fairly extensive articles in local media, but I doubt that these really suggest wider notability. Also some of them sound like advertorial and/or interviews which we normally do not consider to be enough to show the notability of a local food business. JMWt (talk) 10:21, 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) 16:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails the WP:AUD prong of WP:NCORP. There's coverage, but the coverage that exists would make almost every restaurant in the town notable, since it's not discriminate - just lists of bakeries and local press release type stuff. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this one is fine and presents what well-sourced articles should - adequate and reputable sourcing. Meets GNG. And yes, these pages do seem targeted (good faith targeting? hmmmmm). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I also nominated an Australian restaurant article today. Is that targeting the same article creator? Secondly, the coverage seems local as per WP:AUD which overrides GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was bad faith targeting why have 3 editors voted delete? LibStar (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The one non-Another Believer article you nominated has no sources. This and the other pages do. Deletion editors may not be taking into account the extremely wide international regional area that the major Seattle newspapers cover. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is a "international regional area"? I also nominated this Articles for deletion/Cityfields another targeted restaurant deletion nomination, I guess? LibStar (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * JMWT said above "there are fairly extensive articles in local media, but I doubt that these really suggest wider notability." So they have assessed if the sources are "wide". LibStar (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG. Nominator is hounding, targeting, and jumping to AfD without sharing notability concerns on article talk pages despite being asked to do so many oftimes. We've circled this drain so many times. Considering an interaction ban. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ADHOM. WP:AUD trumps GNG, otherwise every local online review of a food venue would result in a Wikipedia article. This AfD is open so I am eligible to defend my reasoning. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If I want you to leave me alone, and you want me to leave you alone (as stated above), are you open to an interaction ban? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. As I have an interest in nominating articles for deletion including restaurants in Seattle and Australia. You keep responding despite crying leave me alone... LibStar (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with sending the articles you've sent to AfD, but you'd be smart to stop voluntarily replying to Another Believer anywhere for a little while, even if you feel the need to defend yourself, as it's not helping anything. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to focus on sources and policy. There seems to be an ongoing disagreement in these AFDs about regional vs. local sources, one being sufficient and the other not. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Every source is local except for a bare mention in Portland Monthly. Fails NCORP. If someone !voting K would like to point me at the three sources they feel demonstrate notability, happy to take a look. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis and stop personalising the discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment on regional coverage, the major Seattle newspapers, which are sourced on the page several times, actually are sold and cover a wide international regional area within the NW United States and into Canada. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - there seems to be enough coverage in my opinion. @User:Valereee, Wikipedia should just allow local referencing in my opinion, but in any case the sources are probably varied enough per Randy Kryn. @User:LibStar, I agree that many of the Indian school noms for deletion are valid but Another Believer seems to be very experienced and good at making articles (see their profile for a list of examples) and each of these cases increasingly makes precedent for similar restaurant articles, so why not just skip them and save the hassle? - Indefensible (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I checked couple of the sources   are all listing of restaurants around seattle, with this bakery only having a passing mention.  Ratnahastin  (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Other sources including 4 and 5 are more in-depth. - Indefensible (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. Portland media coverage is a nice added bonus. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This would imply that everything local the Seattle newspaper covers is notable, though, which would be a really weird exception. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't imply that. There is basically never a circumstance where coverage in a single source confirms notability. General notabiilty says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." which uses the plural "sources" very specifically and intentionally. A major newspaper covering a topic exclusively plus 22 other sources like this article is enough. Steven Walling &bull; talk  16:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition the many smaller mentions, there are in-depth references from The Seattle Times (i.e. the largest daily newspaper in the state) and reliable sources like the local NPR affiliate. The vast majority of restaurants do not get dual coverage from real, reliably fact-checked news sources like these (as opposed to how basically every popular restaurant or bar in a major city gets covered in Eater). This obviously passes WP:SIRS criteria. Steven Walling &bull; talk  06:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep: Would like to see more RS, but from what others have provided there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 18:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. In-depth references from The Seattle Times, the largest daily newspaper in Washington and perhaps the largest in the Pacific Northwest.
 * FatCat96 (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. What is required is widespread coverage in independent, notable WP:RS. I don't see any of that here. The majority of the sources concerning this bakery is primarily from local sources. GuardianH (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.