Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genoa (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 __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Genoa (restaurant)

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

Now closed restaurant that fails GNG. Coverage is almost all local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable restaurant, now closed. No sourcing that I can find, I don't think it was ever exceptional in some way, it was just another restaurant. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Genoa Building. It's not notable on its own, but can be used to improve the article on the notable building.  Sounder Bruce  01:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold here and see if I can convince you to change your vote to keep. I have expanded the article significantly, I'd like to think beyond a point where merging to Genoa Building is an option (not to mention, the building is independently notable, being listed on the National Register of Historic Places). I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the overall amount of secondary coverage specifically focused on the restaurant. If helpful, I can share titles of ten or so in-depth profiles/reviews published by The Oregonian alone (assuming you have access to the archives). This Wikipedia entry still needs work, and I'm still folding archive newspaper sources into the text, but I'd like to see if you could revisit this discussion and specify your stance on available sourcing and thoroughness of coverage by reputable journalistic publications. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). The topic is clearly notable based on in-depth reporting and reviews in multiple independent and reputable major publications. Oppose merge to Genoa Building, as the entry should remain focused on the significance of the building and NRHP status. I've expanded the article significantly and I've not finished searching for books or even the Oregonian archives. Based on their nominations (and even some withdrawals), I think nominator is pursuing AfD before completing thorough assessments of available coverage. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it get any coverage outside of Oregon? LibStar (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not actually a requirement. If you're going to invent your own rules, you can expect them to be given exactly as much weight as they deserve. -- Jayron 32 19:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment about 30 of the sources are from the same source "Eater Portland". LibStar (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So ignore those, if you choose. There are plenty of other sources. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to pass GNG easily. Well referenced, a variety of different source, no issues at all with keeping this.  -- Jayron 32 19:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Oregonian is a statewide/regional source, not just local. It has statewide circulation, as well as in southern Washington, and has circulation numbers second only to the Seattle Times in the Pacific Northwest. There are therefore enough non-local sources to easily pass WP:AUD, since at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Slam-dunk keeper as the subject of multiple pieces of independently-produced coverage in publications of presumable veracity. Carrite (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes GNG with all those sources. PalauanReich (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD. gidonb (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: nomination ideas are invalid. Closure has absolutely nothing to do with notability, and source regionality is not a requirement. ɱ  (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes GNG Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 27 April 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.