Tin Shed Garden Cafe : All coverage is either routine from local sources or part of tourist guides for the area.  Also per WP:NOTGUIDE .  Willbb234 22:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon .  Willbb234 22:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per GNG.  Sorry, but nominator's rationale is just plain inaccurate.  There's sufficient secondary coverage in non-local sources and the restaurant has been featured in multiple national television programs.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Such as?  Willbb234 23:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the primary author listing the sources here that establish notability would make this a much easier "keep" ! vote.  Not necessary, but if there's going to be back-and-forth discussion, that's the thing that could cut it short most easily.  - Pete Forsyth ( talk ) 21:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  An overwhelming number of sources on the page are just lists of restaurants to dine at.  Others are trivial mentions or are unambiguous advertisements.  I'm not convinced that the presence of the restaurant in national television programs assists notability here.  I'm not getting any notability establishing hits on an independent WP:BEFORE .  — Sirdog ( talk ) 05:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this relevant to keep/delete?  An "overwhelming" number (or any kind of number) of sources that are not sufficient doesn't speak to whether or not there are enough sources that are sufficiently in-depth/reliable.  For instance, if an article had 100 sources, of which 95 are passing mentions, and 5 are in-depth coverage in reliable sources, that would be a clear "keep."  The ratio has nothing to do with it; meeting a threshold of several strong sources is what we look for.  (Note, I haven't reviewed the sources yet myself, and I'm not yet prepared to vote one way or the other.) - Pete Forsyth ( talk ) 21:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for reaching out!  My phraseology was to indicate that most of the sourcing present are just lists, with the remainder being trivial mentions or advertisements (or otherwise not GNG compliant).  I further indicate when trying to find sourcing myself that is complaint that I failed.  I would certainly vote Keep if there were adequate complaint sourcing, regardless of the volume of inadequate sourcing.  Though, given the attendance and discussion below, I'm probably going to review the sources again and try finding more again to ensure I didn't miss anything.  — Sirdog ( talk ) 22:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense.  And especially thanks for the detailed table below.  I do disagree on some of your assessments, but the specifics make it much easier to discuss.  And that took a lot of work!  - Pete Forsyth ( talk ) 03:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Between the variety of coverage in The Oregonian including [1] , as well as the PBS "Breakfast Special" episode, and Food Network episode the subject seems very likely to meet CORP.  Note some short coverage in NYT [2] which does not meet SIRS, but NYT is a strong signal.  — siro χ o 08:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Siroxo !  Thanks for your analysis.  I have a concern re.  the piece in The Oregonian ; it's attributed to "Special to The Oregonian", which largely publishes listicles .  I'm not sure this has the same reliability as other pieces in that publication, and the intransparent attribution raises some red flags regarding editorial oversight and independence.  I couldn't find any direct evidence that this is problematic, though.  I can't verify anything about the TV episodes, but it's common for those to be influenced by or at least made in agreement with the business.  The business owners sign releases to allow TV networks to air footage of their restaurant and show its branding (which is otherwise copyrighted, like any other work of art), so I don't think those meet the strict independence standards of WP:NCORP .  As you mention, the NYT source does not provide significant coverage.  At best, we have NYT and The Oregonian, and one SIGCOV source is not enough for WP:NCORP .  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NCORP is written for businesses, not for cultural institutions.  More is at play for restaurants, bars, and the like, and they often transcend individual organizations; names carry on, legacies, cuisines, etc.  ɱ (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Variety of good sources including the NYT.  No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ No Swan So Fine : nobody's trying to make the point that good sources aren't present but rather that the sources are either not in depth (especially with regards to the tourist guide sources) or local.  Even if there are national sources available, the coverage would still have to be in depth and from multiple sources, as outlined at GNG.  Willbb234 22:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete .   Yet another attempt to make Wikipedia a tourist guide to Portland.  WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE ; WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS ; WP:ROTM ; WP:SIRS ; WP:NORG ; etc, etc.   Quite frankly nearly everything at Category:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon fails on all of these levels, but a cabal of editors seem to ! vote to keep every time.  -- wooden superman 13:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Couldn't disagree more: there's no attempt at creating a tourist guide, the category has many quality entries, and there's actually a group of editors working to delete entries unnecessarily. Maybe next time your vote can include a source assessment. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's my source assessment: NONE of them meet the criteria in my ! vote above.  -- wooden superman 13:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Documented culture of Portland, Oregon.  Nicely-written article.  And like siroχo said above, this does pass NCORP.  ɱ (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As mentioned above, the TV episodes are likely not independent sources for the purposes of WP:NCORP .  I have some concerns re.  The Oregonian (also explained above), but even if we accept that source, it's just one SIGCOV source, and that's simply not enough for the notability guideline.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sigh, the goal posts are always changing for notability of restaurants.  We've been through dozens of these lately, with most editors agreeing national TV coverage counts.  Here there's evidence of multiple TV shows covering the restaurant, but now that's not enough... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm. If there is widespread consensus on this TV coverage thing, particularly consensus outside of specific AfDs, I'm very willing to reconsider. However, from what I know about how the industry works, TV coverage can't be strictly independent, if nothing else then because it requires consent from the subjects, which compromises neutrality. Maybe we should open a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:NCORP ? Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Compromises neutrality? In this article, the TV programs are mentioned in passing and not used to verify specific claims made in the text. I don't think we need to be concerned about neutrality. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not for article content, but independence is essential for sources intended to establish notability.  I elaborated on that re.  neutrality to demonstrate that independence is affected substantially by the legal requirements of making a TV episode about a business.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Understood, but I must strongly disagree with your assessment, especially given the number of times I've seen national TV coverage used as a valid reason for keeping.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I watched the coverage here , and it don't think 5 minutes of excerpts from interviews with customers really does much in the way of establishing notability.  Willbb234 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Willbb234 : I just watched it as well and my impression is the opposite.  The fact that this nationally-focused program chose to focus on breakfast in Portland, and that their primary interview (which you don't mention) -- the author of a book about breakfast in Portland -- chose to bring them to this particular restaurant.  Five minutes is a pretty substantial amount of time for a news magazine piece, permitting a fair amount of depth.  And at the end of the day it is customers who determine what restaurants succeed, fail, or become famous or renowned; vox pop journalism is a well-established practice for secondary sources.  The reasons they chose to spoke to these individuals are made clear in the preamble and the way it's presented.  - Pete Forsyth ( talk ) 21:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How you feel about one program's coverage doesn't change the fact that non-local outlets have shown an interest in the topic.  Clearly the PBS coverage should be counted, as it is created by a major reputable (not to mention, publicly funded) outlet, specific to the topic, and geared for a general audience.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, these concerns should raise some eyebrows.  Interviews with customers are certainly not up to the standards of WP:ORGCRIT , particularly with regards to reliability.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if you don't count a PBS profile, there's Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives .  Surely coverage by an independently notable chef on an independently notable TV series broadcast by an independently notable national network counts?  Again, splitting hairs when there's plenty more secondary coverage to consider as well.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion isn't about whether or not you believe restaurant articles desrve a place in an encyclopedia but whether there are sufficient reliable sources present, in the article or brought up in this discussion, to establish notability for this particular subject. Those arguing Keep have highlighted several they believe do serve that purpose, it would be helpful if those who believe this article should be Deleted reviewed those sources or made specific, rather than general comments about the sourcing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based primarily on the TV episodes. The idea that the coverage is not independent because the restaurant cooperates is, frankly, silly; that's like saying that we can't count interviews toward notability because the subject cooperated in agreeing to do the interview. That the shows chose the restaurant to cover is a sign that they consider it worthy of note. -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 01:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - strong local and independent coverage.  Salsakesh ( talk ) 22:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The following is my personal assessment of the sources as present in the article.  I couldn't find any additional sourcing with another WP:BEFORE .  I'm happy to discuss any sources that may not be here or errors in the table.  Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirdog Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  References 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 20-23, 34, 37-49, and 51 of Special:PermaLink/1171076823 List of restaurants to dine at with insufficient commentary and/or commentary is an advertisement and/or is listed as a winner or runner up in a user generated poll ✘ No https://books.google.com/books? id=-xEA_1nkxcAC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA91&dq=%22Tin+Shed%22+portland&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Tin%20Shed%22%20portland&f=false Name check ✘ No https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=35ER8lDXYUE (coverage by PBS ) Entirety of footage is customer / author of book interviews regarding the restaurant ✘ No https://www.wweek.com/restaurants/2016/07/12/dogs-can-now-get-ice-cream-headaches-thanks-to-portlands-best-dog-menu/ ?  Name check ✘ No https://www.fastcompany.com/1662936/creative-destinations-portlands-artisan-culture-is-in-full-bloom Name check ✘ No https://www.thrillist.com/venue/eat/portland/restaurants/tin-shed Effectively a promotional advert for the restaurant with no neutral commentary ~ ✘ No https://books.google.com/books? id=NKXaCwAAQBAJ&dq=%22Tin+Shed+Garden+Cafe%22&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q=%22Tin%20Shed%20Garden%20Cafe%22&f=false ?  Name check ✘ No https://www.portlandmercury.com/music/2003/06/12/29199/live-music-listings ?  Name check ✘ No https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/travel/01surfacing.html Name check ✘ No https://www.oregonlive.com/galleries/LUK3ZS5RCND63NWSQCCPKRQYHI/ Repeats the same sentence over and over that Yelp says it's No. 1, trivial ✘ No https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-8615-tin-shed-garden-cafe.html Effectively a promotional advert for the restaurant with no neutral commentary ~ ✘ No https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-12046-breakfast-of-champions.html ?  Name check ✘ No https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/may/27/portland-oregon-city-guide-best-hotels-restaurants-bars Effectively a promotional advert for the restaurant with no neutral commentary ~ ✘ No https://www.streetroots.org/news/2020/06/17/portland-restaurants-aim-cut-waste-recyclable-and-compostable-take-out-containers-go Name check x2 ✘ No https://www.portlandmercury.com/articles/2005/07/28/34167/a-shed-ahead ~ ~ It reads promotional in nature, but there is some neutral commentary, so ultimately I'm torn.  Not great, regardless.  ~ Partial https://www.oregonlive.com/life_and_culture/erry-2018/07/d722f284e58631/27_oregon_restaurants_guy_fier.html Not WP:SIGCOV coverage in list of restaurants reviewed by Guy Fieri ✘ No https://www.oregonlive.com/life-and-culture/g66l-2019/02/293c802ca2620/these-are-the-portland-restaurants-guy-fieri-visited-on-diners-driveins-and-dives.html Not WP:SIGCOV coverage in list of restaurants reviewed by Guy Fieri ✘ No https://www.foodnetwork.com/shows/diners-drive-ins-and-dives/episodes/comfort-and-soul Name check ✘ No https://www.oregonlive.com/movies/2010/07/pbs_documentary_breakfast_spec.html Fails WP:SIGCOV , name checked throughout ✘ No https://pdx.eater.com/2010/7/12/6726897/tin-shed-and-helsers-on-pbs-portobellos-vegan-pizza-to-go Name check ✘ No https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2010/03/portland_still_grapples_with_s.html Coverage is minimal in relation to entirely different topic ✘ No https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2009/12/breakfast_tin_shed_vs_helsers.html I share

Discussion outcome: no consensus