Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenouil


 * 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. This discussion was pretty evenly split and with a fundamental disagreement on the value of the sources in the article, I think a relisting would just prolong an unnecessary dispute between some editors on the subject of restaurants in Portland. So, I'm closing this one as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Fenouil

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

Spuriously removed prod. Fails WP:NCORP. Defunct company. No lasting notability. Fails WP:AUD, WP:DEL14.  scope_creep Talk  18:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Snow keep you're not getting the memo about WIKIHOUNDING, are you? There's nothing spurious about that. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 18:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you keep these WP:NPA attacks up, you will end up at first Ani, and when that fails WP:ARBCOM. Make no mistake. No more warnings.   scope_creep Talk  21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol  KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 00:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Showing your true colours now. What's that supposed to do, intimidate me? It's so rich that somebody who blindly nominated 20 articles all by the same user at one go with barely any justification, can turn around and threaten others with litigation. For what? Calling out behaviour that is patently wikihounding? Ridiculous. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 00:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Clearly meets WP:NCORP. Use of the word spurious shows bad faith on the noms part and should be crossed out per WP:ASPERSIONS. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a defunct restaurant with no external existance outside this article. Everybody in the world has forgotten about it. There is no lasting historical or cultural impact that this company has made that it makes it special. It is completely non-notable and not worth a jot. The references that are there, do not support a dead company like this, as being notable after it ceases to exist. Not only that, knowhere on Wikipedia does it state that we are directory of dead companies, i.e. per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Lastly i'm not removing spurious because the editor Kingoflettuce is on a WP:NPA strop in the other Afd's and and removed the prod in a fit of pique. If the editor keeps it up, they are going to be blocked.   scope_creep Talk  21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "A fit of pique" is going to one user's list of articles created and happily nominating the top x number of articles for deletion. I have every right to decline to PROD if it's in, my very reasonable estimation, a case of hounding. You can't throw a fuss just because things don't go your way. Yeah, sure, you've been in thousands of AfD, good for you, but that really doesn't mean anything much. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 00:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete maybe one or two sources from the Oregonian that are RS, I don't see much extensive coverage beyond that. Fodor's mentions them but I wouldn't consider it very extensive. Could perhaps. redirect to the former owner if they're notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I've expanded the article to include 17 additional citations. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Searching "Fenouil Portland Chureau" at Lexis yields 199 results, including 138 published by The Oregonian, 11 published by the Portland Business Journal, and 4 published by the Statesman Journal. I'm unable to share URLs so I would encourage editors to access the database if possible. Of course, Chureau was not chef the entire time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep ɱ  (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are 30 sources in the article, including one from the NYT and a couple of book mentions. — Jacona (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my keep. I had done a newspapers.com search and thought I found a lot of stuff, but it was the exact same article repeated over and over, republished for months. Jacona (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. The New York Times article does not fulfill the criterion for having one in-depth source from outside of the locality. It's a brief mention in a suggested itinerary and hence does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Rupples (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV and WP:N in general make no mention of locality, so this is false. ɱ  (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Think I picked this up from User:Valeree's comment in the Daily Doughnut AfD. Yes. Here: []. This suggested to me that an 'outside of the locality' source is a criterion applied when evaluating notability for restaurants in AfDs. At any rate, we're looking at WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS in addition to WP:N, are we not? Are you claiming the NYT mention of Fenouil amounts to in-depth coverage? Rupples (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The mention isn't sigcov. It certainly does show that Fenouil is on the radar outside of the local area, though. IMO it helps, and if we're looking at a restaurant that just needs one...leetle...push to get over the notability hump, this might convince me. Note that I haven't looked at all the sources, so I'm not commenting on whether or not that's where this subject is. Valereee (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete The references appear to be standard coverage for a fine-dinning restaurant in the Portland area. They fail to demonstrate significant coverage of Fenouil. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Statewide news coverage is not common for any "fine-dinning" restaurant. So this is false. ɱ  (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG and AUD (disclaimer: article creator). Subject has received significant coverage. The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. The newspaper is a major regional publication and should not be treated the same as the Portland Business Journal, Portland Mercury, etc. I can assure you the vast majority of restaurants in Portland or Oregon do not receive similar coverage, so please stop with the "local" and "routine" nonsense. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:23, 24 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)  18:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to have copied this exact same text across from the other Afd or vice versa. Is that the level of your involvment? No interest in discussing the article. Merely a partisan attack with no intellectual thought of what constitutes a notable article? Its a grist for the mill.   scope_creep Talk  13:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This is what is happening here is several editors who are going through the references and trying to determine exactly what meets WP:NCORP. Most of these references fail for various reasons, but mostly because they are no longer viable per the new NCORP standard. The other side will post links to references and cite from WP:GNG that the sources are reliable and independent and not talk in any discussion around the fact that they fail NCORP. AFD cannot be a debate when one side completely ignores established policy and can't demonstrate any knowledge of the NCORP guidelines, nor the fact that the NCORP guidelines are stricter than many other guidelines. This has been a fact since 2018. The main takeaway is that the Keep !voters fail to show the references meet NCORP. At the end, it always seems to come down a !vote counting exercise where all arguments are accepted whether they are valid or not. That is total head in the sand think and is particularly worrisome and frustrating when they're is conensus on this, which is being ignored.   scope_creep Talk  13:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest... KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 14:41, 25 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.