Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey's Taproom


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Bailey's Taproom

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

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to show the subject meets WP:NCORP. What coverage there is appears to be strictly local. Searches on google and newspapers.com did not provide anything useful to add to the article. Note:This was recently the subject of a mass AfD that failed for procedural reasons rather than notability reasons. Jacona (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Oregon. Jacona (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with nom, only local coverage found, about it closing. One of the many hundreds of places that closed during/due to covid. Nothing terribly notable about this one to differentiate it from others. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The last AfD discussion closed just hours ago, but I'll roll up my sleeves and see what I can do here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, gotta take a break but with some help from others, the article now has approximately 40 sources from newspapers, magazines, and books. There's still more work needed (see ongoing Talk page discussions) but I'm ready to vote strong keep per GNG already. Also worth noting, the article currently mentions very little about attached sibling establishment The Upper Lip (sometimes called Bailey's Upper Lip). More information should be added about this business, too, in my opinion, so please keep in mind when assessing coverage. I'm not sure why there's a rush to delete this entry, and the topic's clearly notable. There's enough coverage in a wide variety of reputable publications to flesh out an article with description, operational history, and reception sections. (Finally, please note I'm trying my best here while being drowned in deletion nominations recently. Not whining, just saying.) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources added meet NCORP's WP:AUD, including NYT and U.S.News and World Report entries. And just to mention the obvious, the Pulitzer Prize winning Oregonian qualifies as a regional source, being the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, with statewide coverage. Kudos to for the WP:HEY save.— Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Lets examine the first block of references, since the article on this dead company has been significantly updated.
 * Ref 1 Trade reference. Page 26. Dated 26 Apr 2016
 * Ref 2 From press-release.
 * Ref 3  Profile reference. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. From 2014. The bar is not in the current book.
 * Ref 4 Profile reference. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. From 2014.
 * Ref 5 Passing mention. Where to go for a pint, clickbait.
 * Ref 6 Profile
 * Ref 7 Unable to see it
 * Ref 8 Profile.
 * Ref 9 Profile.
 * Ref 10 Routine annoucement of closure. February 2021
 * Ref 11. Two short paragraphs fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Dated October 2021
 * Ref 12 Login page.

All these are dated when the company was still existing. NOT a single reference is available post the organisation that exists to prove it lasting cultural impact. It is merely a typical average boozer that can find anywhere on any road on the planet and once gone will be completly forgotten. The only reason its on here is due to spurious clickbait review culture that exists, the mass spreading press-releases for paid advertising that is a function of the current internet. In 5 years time, people will even struggle to remember it existed. It is no historical, cultural, or artistic existance beyond what it had when it was in business. It is non-notable. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a directory of dead businesses that have no encyclopeadic value. There is many other venue, that are much suitable for that.  scope_creep Talk  09:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I am again baffled by your assertion an article fails to meet the criterion, "NOT a single reference is available post the organisation that exists to prove it lasting cultural impact." Where in our guidelines is current evidence of "significant cultural impact" mentioned as a requirement for notability? — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Searching "Bailey's Taproom" at Lexis yields 108 returns, including dozens of articles published by the Portland Business Journal, The Oregonian, and the Daily Journal of Commerce, among others. I've shared a number of these on the article's talk page but there are many more requiring review. There are a number of international publications but I'm inclined to assume most of these are passing mentions in travel guides of Portland and/or duplicates of other publications. I can't share URLs so others may need to login for source assessment. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * keep there is WP:SIGCOV and WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, article can clearly be improved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There's already been enough non-local reliable sourcing added in the last 2 days to make this one a clear "Keep". The establishment easily meets WP:GNG. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passed WP:GNG and WP:42, and at this point this is a behavior discussion and not an editorial discussion. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon article creator AB makes a case which I interpret to be a misconduct compliant. Anyone can AfD this again later, but for now, default to keep for misconduct concerns. There is no reason to nominate this many articles, all from the same person, when discussion is already well-attended and fruitful, during an English Wikipedia holiday season, when the article creator has been posting "please leave me alone" to multiple deletion nominations. There are enough sources here to presume editorial integrity; if there is a problem then raise it again at a reasonable pace after a reasonable amount of time. The AfD process should not be available for use by a nominator who fails to address another editor's request to be left alone. I am not accusing the AfD nominator here; misconduct can be an error and not intentional. I am just saying cool it, slow down, and regroup with some moderator guidance. The conduct problem is a barrier to legitimate discussion here.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  18:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bluerasberry, Excuse me. here are the articles I've nominated "recently". As you can see, This is the first article I've nominated in months, out of a total of three in 2022. You are accusing me of misconduct, whether by error or intentional and telling me to cool it, slow the pace. I'm sorry, how is nominating one of this editors articles ever, and a grand total of three articles in a year an unreasonable pace? What on earth are you talking about? — Jacona (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jacona, I'll let Bluerasberry speak on their behalf, but I think this discussion is the outlier in a group of similar restaurant articles being nominated for deletion by another editor. Bluerasberry may have come to this discussion from the list of deletion nominations at WikiProject Oregon, or even my talk page, where you'll see a long series of notifications (which I've mostly collapsed for readability purposes). I could see how Bluerasberry might have overlooked the correct nominator here (I'll even take the blame for not differentiating nominators over at WP:ORE; my goal was to focus on the content and not the editors). My frustration with this particular nomination was only being given a few hours after this AfD discussion ended to make improvements, but you're not the one drowning me in nominations. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not you, just a lot happening right now. I apologize for putting you on the spot to explain yourself and react. That was my error. I apologize.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bluerasberry Perhaps you could strike out which part of your above comment does not apply here? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:35, 24 December 2022 (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.