Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Liquor Store


 * 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. Looks like there's not going to be an agreement on this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The Liquor Store

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't see how this meets the criteria in NOT NEWS -- local coverage only, and BLP considerations  DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I agree with the nomination that the topic has only local interest/local news coverage and it doesn't Notability (organizations and companies). CockpitJim (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete we have uneven coverage of local restaurants and for some reason we’re overserved with eateries in Portland. I can’t think that article like this would survive in most other cities in the world. Mccapra (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because almost all of them are by the same user. His MO is "local newspaper and local alt-weeklies reviewed it, just like they do for countless other restaurants in the city, therefore it's notable." Reywas92Talk 04:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I dunno about my "MO" but have I promoted many Wikipedia articles about local establishments to Good article status? Sure have! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage is routine local news of a short-lived business establishment. Article does not assert notability beyond existence as a WP:MILL bar and fails WP:NCORP. Reywas92Talk 20:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am currently working to expand the article based on secondary coverage. There should be enough sourcing to draft Description, History, and Reception sections. I've promoted ~20 articles about Portland restaurants to Good article status recently and I think there's enough coverage here to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I expect I'll have to prove that to the editors above by scrambling to flesh out the article sooner than later. Please be sure to assess all available sourcing (including the Oregonian archives, which I will be sure to incorporate) and not just the sources currently used as inline citations within the stub. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG, since I've had a bit more time to assess sourcing. I think the Oregonian, Eater Portland, Willamette Week, Portland Mercury sources with support from Mixmag and Thirsty magazines meet notability criteria. Even if all of the 'Needle Exchange' sources were removed, there's still 25+ references. Add a couple images, which I plan to take soon, and do a bit more research and this could be a nice short little Wikipedia entry. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would encourage the first couple editors to look at the article again, per WP:HEY and Another Believer's work on it since it was nominated from when it was a stub. For my assessment, there's coverage by Eater, The Oregonian, Willamette Week, and the Portland Mercury, all of which are notable publications. I don't think Eater or The Oregonian can be considered local news, as Eater is a Vox Media brand, and The Oregon is the largest newspaper in the state. --Kbabej (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is Eater Portland, they have a number of subsites with local coverage in various cities. Oregonian is abosolutely local news: a Portland paper routinely covering a Portland establishment for their local subscribers. The New York Times is the largest newspaper in the country, and it still has a local section; not everything they cover is notable just because it's widely read and other sections cover non-local news. I do not believe routine reviews (and ref bomb-style passing mentions) in local papers for a local audience establishes notability because this still does not show this is more than a run-of-the-mill business. Reywas92Talk 03:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to agree on the definition of local news, then, because I think the largest newspaper in the state covering a business in the largest city in the state isn't "local news." Local news, to me, would be something along the lines of the Beaverton Valley Times homepage story today ("Westview High School student writes book about cybersecurity"). --Kbabej (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This implies that whatever happens in a large city would not be local. A Beaverton paper writing about Beaverton businesses for Beaverton audience can be just as local as a Portland paper writing about Portland businesses for Portland audience. Whether that's a human-interest story or a restaurant review doesn't change that. The NYT can likewise cover local NYC businesses for a NYC audience. Just because the Portland paper has readership elsewhere does not mean anything it covers is inherently statewide news.
 * The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. Dismissing as local is ridiculous. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And the Seattle Times, being the largest in the Pacfic Northwest, also has local coverage of local businesses. Is everything it covers local? No. But to suggest that a restaurant review of a place less than 3 miles from their offices isn't local is ridiculous. Reywas92Talk 04:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage you to look at WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH because none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Oregonian articles rely entirely on information provided by the owner/company. One Eater article is based entirely on an interview with bartender Orona and the other is a piece on a "for lease" sign appearing in the window although the article concludes with a potted history of the businesses associated with that location. The Willamette Week articles have nothing in-depth (some have been contributed by "WW Contributor") and plug the place as being cool and trendy but that's not the same as notable. We need to see multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If you think there are two articles that meet the criteria, post the links here.  HighKing++ 21:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're dismissing the Oregonian and Eater Portland articles for how they are used within the article. I use these writers and sources on Wikipedia all the time. Also, "WW Contributor" just means an unnamed staff writer, which is not uncommon. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The simplest answer is that there's a different standard applied to references that are used to support a fact or detail within an article (reliable independent secondary source) to references that can be used for articles on companies/organizations/societies (covered by NCORP) to establish the notability of the topic. I'm not "dismissing" those publications as to how they're used "within the article", I'm pointing out that they fail the criteria for references that can be used to establish notability. On a final point - I can't see anywhere that confirms that a "WW Contributor" is an unnamed staff writer? An unidentified author should be treated with caution when used to support a fact within an article but cannot be used to establish notability.  HighKing++ 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look into 'WW Contributor', but regardless, I see this only applies to 2 out of 32 sources. I also found an entry in a Fodor's travel guide, so I will update the article now. There may be other book mentions but that'll have to wait until I can visit the library. Seems this will come down to whether or not an entry with 32 citations using The Oregonian+Willamette Week+Eater Portland+Portland Mercury+Portland Business Journal+Mixmag+Thirsty+Fodor's establishes notability per GNG. Lest we not forget Willamette Week is a Pulitzer Prize-winning publication established in 1974, so we're not just talking a local blog here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also is https://elevenpdx.com/live/know-your-venue/the-liquor-store/ a reliable source to include? (alt link)--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I note you've not addressed the point made above and you're continuing with the argument of "but the article has 32 sources" without explaining why any single one of those sources meets the criteria for establishing notability. You're entitled to hold whatever opinion you like but hopefully the closing admin will weigh our arguments according to our policies and guidelines. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the Eleven PDX Magazine article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:ORGIND. Relies entirely on information provided by the owner as is evident from the article. There's no "opinion/analysis/etc" provided by the author (except perhaps they described the happy hour as "enticing"). <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I give up. Also, you're doing a lot of 'I think I'm right per NCORP and hopefully admin will agree with me'. I don't know why you're trying so hard to have this article about a bar and music venue deleted, but no need to speak to the closing admin directly. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: WP:NOTNEWS does not apply whatsoever, as this is not about a single event, and the entity is notable for much more than the lawsuits and closure. Agreed with below that the AfD seemingly just reflected the stub that this article was.  - what WP:DEL-REASON are you citing here? Local or regional sources do not inherently fail WP:RS.  ɱ  (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Am I missing something? This article included 5 references saying the same thing ("Paris Hilton will release a new single with Lil Wayne") and was kept, but this article is incorrect because it relies on "local coverage"? Why that's incorrect here, but correct there? And yes, I know that "other stuff exists" is not a solid argument, but I have nominated things worse than this and they all have been kept. The only sin I see here is that the article looked like this and not like this. (CC) Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are different guidelines for corporations (WP:NCORP) and songs. The standard for references to establish notability for corporations is stricter than most other guidelines. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But all guidelines are subjected to WP:GNG ("[if a topic has received] a significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article"), which the article meets at first sight. Even NCORP establishes that it is subjected to GNG: "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline", the only real difference is that it puts a "stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." WP:SIRS includes a beautiful table that goes straight to the point. With that in mind, can someone create an objective table assessing all 32 sources to determine if none of them is significant and reliable? Because even pages like Apple Inc. include sources that are not significant nor reliable (in NCORP terms). (CC) Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ 21:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, NCORP and GNG go hand-in-hand. It isn't a case that of passing either one or the other, an article must pass both. As you've pointed out correctly above, NCORP puts a stronger emphasis on which references may be used to establish notability, the main criteria of which can be found in WP:ORGIND (most common failure) and WP:CORPDEPTH. So, for example, you've mentioned WP:SIRS above but you've *also* got to pay attention to WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND to make sure the reference meets the criteria for "Independent" and "In-depth". So once again, we're back to what I've said above. None of the references meet NCORP. If you think they do, you'll need to make your argument with reference to NCORP guidelines.
 * By the way. I also nominated List of international relations institutes and organisations and List of educational institutions in Salem, India, both subjected to NCorp (because of WP:LISTCOMPANY), yet they were kept and both still under sourced and are practically a directory. Once again, this is not a matter of being a song or a company, it's a matter of how inconsistent is the AFD process as sometimes an article with 0 sources is to be kept, but an an article with 32 alleged-but-not-proved-by-paper unreliable sources is to be deleted. Where is the bar set? (CC) Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ 21:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of our guidelines. LISTCOMPANY specifically states that companies included in lists do not need to meet NCORP unless the context of the list itself requires it. Also, "lists" (even lists of companies) do not fall under NCORP but GNG. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm incompetent. But an incompetent with a valid opinion and I still saying keep, and you can't change that. And of course, you haven't demonstrated why this fails NCORP, you just keep mentioning it, despite the fact it is excessively easy to perform the task I asked for two days ago. C'est la vie. (CC) Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ 21:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've explained repeatedly above why the references fail NCORP. You're entitled to your opinion, here's hoping the closing admin will weigh things accordingly. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes GNG. At least at this point, as reflected in the article itself. As to NCORP, it says "If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline." As I read this, and as is the case in general, passing GNG is enough. All the deletes seem to come before the improvements made to the article, and since then its been all keeps.a And hey - look at the article now - its a good one. 2603:7000:2143:8500:DC79:4CC3:DC44:71FA (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You said passing GNG is enough - that is incorrect. See the latest RfC at the WP:N Talk page. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment to Closing Admin From the latest at the WP:N Talk page, it is accepted that WP:NCORP has stricter requirements for establishing notability and that topics that fall under that SNG are required to meet those requirements. None of the Keep !voters above have provided a cogent argument which establishes that the discussed references meet NCORP requirements and in some cases they go so far as to quote from other (non-applicable) guidelines or dismiss NCORP altogether. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what convincing arguments do you have that this somehow fails WP:NCORP? So far, nobody aiming to delete has really laid this out with a detailed source review. ɱ  (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've responded above to every editor who mentioned a specific reference and explained why those references fail NCORP. If you believe a particular reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, post a link here and I'll do my best to respond quickly. It would overwhelm this AfD to provide a detailed analysis of each of the 34 references in the article but again, if you think that's necessary, let me know. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.