Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifty Licks


 * 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've read through all the comments, and basically the arguments to keep or to delete are about the same in depth, volume and convincing detail. So I think it's a tie. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Fifty Licks

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails NCORP and GNG. None of the sources establish notability. It is routine press-release type coverage, or otherwise inclusion on lists. All local sources. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk  17:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG. I've worked on dozens of articles about restaurants in Portland, and promoted approximately 25 of them to Good article status, so I have a sense of how much coverage is required for a decent Portland restaurant entry. I've reviewed current + unused external sourcing and believe there's sufficient secondary coverage to meet notability. Also, the passing "all local sources" is a bit dismissive when The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to fail WP:NORG. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)'
 * I still don't think the sources presented below pass WP:NORG, they're all local press release type coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasoning of Another Believer and because there are additional sources available to expand the article. While some of it is press coverage, I disagree that it is all "routine press coverage" Mukedits (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think is significant, specifically? It all seems like either routine mentions (Guardian, LV Sun) or routine business news. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe they're referring to its inclusion on the list of "16 worthy ice cream candidates that opened across the country over the past year or so". I don't know, it just seems like every chain in every city is 'notable' under these guidelines, and I don't think that's true. It's a Portland ice cream store. Is that enough? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  16:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely not notable. The sources are just the typical puff pieces that every restaurant or local eatery puts out to their community. It has really no place in an encyclopedia. Convocke (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Do article sources satisfy WP:ORGCRIT for notability, and is there significant coverage to meet WP:AUD? Below in green are the notability guidelines that apply, and below those guidelines an analysis in table format with my notes. Completing the table is a useful exercise; I do apologize it takes up so much space, but I think it helps to clarify the quality of each source. I concluded several of the sources are not reliable enough to use, so will be editing then and related content out. Please note: while passing mentions do not contribute to notability, those sources are still okay to use for verifiability, Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Related guideline, WP:ORGCRIT:

Related guideline, WP:AUD:


 * Comment: I've collapsed the assessment table below that is actually sourced to the guideline in WP:SIRS: Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability. To summarize: nine sources meet the guideline, including four from The Oregonian, a statewide and regional source, and three are from Thrillist and Eater, both out of New York. Interested editors may want to read our articles on those organizations to verify they meet the "strong indication of notability" criterion in the guideline. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)




 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Also in the table above, a lot of those are to the same local paper and are just puff pieces for advertising in the community. This is an encyclopedia. Also can we get a hide on the above table? It is way to large and unnecessary. Convocke (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. : Agreed, the table is large, but it's sourced from the relevant notability guideline. Sorry if it offends your aesthetic sensibilities — it's helpful in identifying not only the sources that fulfill notability, but also sources that are inappropriate, which I have excised along with related material from the article. BTW, "This is an encyclopedia" is not a cogent or relevant argument, just an obvious truism. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the table. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete A lot of the supposed coverage doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH as a routine announcement. Thrillist is pretty widespread. I read it on and off. Who doesn't. Looking at the article at These boozy ice cream cocktails are everything you've ever wanted. It states at the bottom, By using BeOp, you agree to our Cookie Policy, you see that BeOp is an ad platform https://beop.io/en/. so that effectively means these are PR. It is a conversational ad. So sources are actually very waek and fail WP:NCORP.   scope_creep Talk  23:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, It appears you may have been confused by the cookie policy for BeOp, an advertiser on the Thrillist site that posts an ad after the last sentence, "it's a solid bet that you'll make this place your regular stop". The BeOp ad is composed of click-bait questions and their cookie policy. However, Thrillist is published by Group Nine Media. The actual Group Nine Media Privacy policy, and the Gruop Nine Media Terms and conditions that apply to the article are available all the way at the bottom of the Thrillist website. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The above source analysis is a serious failure if it calls this, especially this, and absurdly this significant coverage. Sources are routine local coverage of generic local restaurants, covering them as they do other typical restaurants. pdx.eater.com is a local source using a national site as its platform, and when a Portland-based newspaper covers local Portland businesses, that's also local, not exactly the sections folks in Medford are reading. Reywas92Talk 00:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG and has significant coverage, with some in-depth such as THIS and THIS. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added the input of to the 3 assessment of sources table entries above, and I have removed 2 entries no longer cited in the article. Updated summary: six sources meet the notability guidelines, including two from The Oregonian, a statewide and regional source, two are from Thrillist and Eater, both out of New York, and two from Portland Monthly, a local source that contributes to notability. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted, the Eater site was local, and many of the "good" articles are simply "ice cream shop opens new location," which I don't think contribute to notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating. I respectfully disagree with SportingFlyer and continue to support keeping the article for continued development. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, Dose not satisfy WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet the stricter criteria of WP:NCORP. The table can't be taken seriously either if it calls references like this interview with the owner "independent".  HighKing++ 19:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2021 (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.