Post Alley Pizza : Would need wider coverage as per WP:AUD to meet GNG or WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator) as the topic has been covered by multiple independent and reliable sources.  This is a continuation of restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily (my user talk page is littered with notifications for similar entries which have been kept following AfD discussions).  Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local and regional news sources as well as books and other industry outlets, providing in-depth coverage of the business.  I've asked the nominator many times to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD.  This entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides the WP:ADHOM comments, if this was a straightforward keep with reliable sources, you would have 100% keep votes...which is not the case. LibStar ( talk ) 06:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Business ,  and Washington . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Every one of the many sources in the article is either a local review or mentions the subject as a passing example.  Fails WP:ORGDEPTH . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has been expanded significantly, if you're willing to take another look. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not getting any notability 'vibe' here.  Sparse history.  Nothing about the decor or building or culture.  All I'm seeing is elements of a menu, names of owners and local reviews of the type, "here's a great pizza".  Looked at a few of these bars/eateries/restaurants nominated for deletion and normally find something to latch on to and see why a keep opinion is warranted.  Not going to wade through all the sources.  I'm evaluating the notability of the pizzeria from what's written in the article.  Many bland, shallow, rote "reviews" do not make this place notable and it seems that this article has little else but such reviews to shore it up — witness the length of the Reception section compared with the rest of the article.  Fails all notability criteria including GNG.  Firstly, there's no credible claim as to why this place is notable.  The only indication is that it "offers granulated garlic to shake on your slice".  Secondly, the reviews appear not to fulfill the requirement of WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS and hence do not amount to significant, indepth coverage.  If someone kindly points out the reviews with most depth, I'll take a second look.  The onus on providing the evidence for notability rests with those seeking to keep the article.  Rupples ( talk ) 06:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've expanded the article with more operational history and demonstrated reach outside the Seattle area via Timothy Egan of The New York Times .  Will continue to expand as time allows.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the article passes the notability guidelines per WP:ORGIND .  Sahaib ( talk ) 20:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I don't think the current references pass the WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS requirement above, most are just reviews.  However, there are a lot of references on there, leading me to believe that cleanup could be possible.  However, I am very much on the fence here, the references for the most part in the article now are not enough to provide notability.  Royal Autumn Crest ( talk ) 20:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete An independent pizza joint is somehow notable?  Nice that Seattle has such as vibrant media scene, but hyper-local media 'Five places to snack' pieces do not get us past WP:GNG, folks...  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, an independent pizzeria can be notable.  To pass GNG, a topic just needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, like Post Alley!  Not all of the sources here are local.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , User:Another Believer has added several new sources to the article.  Some are WP:LOCAL , such as each Seattle Times article, but there are some sources from outside of Seattle (two from Portland, one from the New York Times), and one from a not-sure-if-reputable pizza magazine (PMQ Pizza Magazine).  Given the sources themselves, I am not sure if they meet WP:GNG given the content of the source articles.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Another one of the supposed fast-food joints as being notable.  Coverage is just woeful again.  I don't understand why the incessant need to put every eatery in for that city.  I often wonder if its money or some kind of coi.  Anyway, I suspect that in the months leading up to Christmas, more of them will be reaching Afd.  scope_creep Talk 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please stop with the vague COI accusations and threats to continue hounding me.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Might be a pattern of behavior, they made a similar comment to User:A.  B. on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Accel-KKR and received a warning against "casting aspersions" on their talk page.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 07:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've asked this editor to leave me alone many times.  The community seemingly doesn't really seem interested in punishing them for their problematic behaviors.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm holding off on ! voting until I look deeper into the sourcing, but I have to say this article is extremely promotional .   (No offense to the creator who has obviously worked hard on it.)  I'm sure the pizza is great and the owners are good people, who like tens hundreds of thousands of small business owners do nice things for their community and donate to charitable causes.  However I really wonder if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to have actual menu items and ordering options in an article like The menu has also included breakfast sandwiches made with English muffins; varieties include: B.E.C.; sausage; vegetarian; and one with bacon, cashew butter, roasted delicata squash, and honey.  and Other ingredients for Italian sandwiches have included sesame hoagie rolls, finocchiona salami, spicy coppa, ham, provolone, red onion, and coleslaw.  "Hoagie jazz”, an anchovy spread with calabrian chiles and garlic, has been served on the side. Dipping sauces include a homemade ranch and calabrian chili buffalo sauce. If it is kept I suggest removing all the advertorial content and it pruning it back to a short piece. Netherzone ( talk ) 20:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm happy to discuss specific content on the article's talk page. I will say, though, that I've included similar menu overviews in the many (50+) restaurant entries I've promoted to Good article status. We can discuss any text you might find promotional but basic menu summaries are pretty standard for restaurant articles. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I left a comment on the article talk page. Netherzone ( talk ) 12:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, I'll take a look and I'd be happy to address your concerns but not until this discussion is closed (and assuming the article is kept). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 12:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two things: @ Another Believer , I'm unable to !vote k**p at this time because there is so much superfluous content and verbiage and an overabundance of hyper-local sourcing that it is hard to see the wood for the trees. I can't tell what is really there! If it were stripped back to a short stub article with about 3-to-5 of the very best sources that would help. I'm willing to devote the time and effort into doing so before this AfD closes but can't promise that it would result in a k**p. And I would not want my efforts to be perceived as destructive, deletionist or disruptive to the AfD or otherwise uncollegial. So at this time, I'm leaning towards TNT. @ Elemimele , I think you hit the nail on the head, not just in terms of this article but a larger issue regarding the lack of guidance/policy on restaurant articles. Something that keeps coming up for me in relation to this is: Do we want articles on restaurants to be proper encyclopedia articles, or do we want them to be a compendium of restaurant reviews proving how fabulous the eatery is? My way of thinking is aligned with the former. Netherzone ( talk ) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Netherzone I understand you have issues with specific text, but this is a discussion about secondary coverage. If you prefer, you can totally ignore the text of this Wikipedia entry and focus solely on the citations to determine whether or not you feel there's enough coverage to justify an entry on Wikipedia. I'm all for article improvements by you and other editors, especially this late in the stage of AfD. By all means, please make the entry better, but know unless you vote keep your time may be wasted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Another Believer , what are the 3 to 5 best sources? Could you please list them here? Netherzone ( talk ) 22:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as TNT because the article is so, so overpromotional that even if it is notable, you'd have to start from scratch in writing it. But, Comment , we really need a proper consensus not just on this restaurant but on restaurants in general, about what makes them notable. The normal requirement of multiple independent sources breaks down totally with restaurants because writing  reviews about food outlets is a major part of what every newspaper does. Every restaurant in the universe has newspaper writeups. Even national newspapers do it, and not necessarily of nationally relevant restaurants - they run out of significant restaurants to write about, and write about anywhere their journalist could find. It's almost impossible to be a restaurant without sources. Strewth, if you stand outside a railway station selling cookies for half an hour, someone will write a review about you. If we carry on with no guidelines, we're going to get more-or-less random keeps and deletes according to who happens to turn up at an AfD, and whether they reckon a heap of local newspaper raves and a celebrity-sighting is enough. What is it that makes a restaurant stand out from the crowd? I don't think granulated garlic (which this particular restaurant provides, uniquely in Seattle) is sufficient. Elemimele ( talk ) 20:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Elemimele As someone who's on the receiving end of a constant stream of deletion notifications about restaurants, I could not agree more about coming up with standards for restaurant entries. However, I completely disagree about all restaurants getting news coverage. The vast majority of restaurants do not get much coverage. But, I'll take back my comment if you can demonstrate the ease of getting someone to review your 1/2 hour bake sale. :P --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Although many of the  sources would only qualify as passing mentions (that do serve verifiability), the review by the SeattleMet is significant coverage meeting WP:SIRS . Multiple The Seattle Times sources also qualify as statewide and Pacific Northwest regional circulation, meeting the WP:AUD requirement, at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source you've highlighted contributes as one source towards satisfying WP:SIRS . SIRS requires multiple such sources to establish notability and this is the only one that does. Hence, the article does not meet SIRS. Rupples ( talk ) 22:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IMO, this also counts and would allow further article development. This entry could benefit from a bit more detail about how the business has evolved based on ownership -- the pizzeria was established  in 1997, yet Portland Monthly called the business a "star newcomer" in 2023 and one of the owners was recently called a "rising star". Combined with all of the talk page comments, it seems there's at least some interest in getting this entry to a more polished state. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It fails WP:ORGIND as much of the content is quotes from the owner. There's not sufficient depth in what remains. Rupples ( talk ) 23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Seattle Refined "source" states on their "About" page: "We would love to feature your business, interests, favorite restaurants, etc. on our Seattle Refined platforms.  If you'd like to advertise or partner with us, please reach out to our sales team here.  If you're interested in pitching us a story about something cool in the Pacific Northwest, please contact our editorial team at hello@seattlerefined.com. " - This is the very definition of advertorial native advertising. It is not SIGCOV. It's paid "product" placement. Netherzone ( talk ) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand what you're saying but I'd be comfortable using this source for basic operational history details. You'll forgive me for moving on to other tasks. This never ending train of restaurant deletion nominations (I see LibStar just tagged yet another...) is really killing the enjoyment of contributing to Wikipedia. Constant pings, notifications, tags, one after the next, seemingly indiscriminately because most of the nominations have survived AfD. If editors decide to keep this entry, I'm happy to collaborate on the article's talk page, but this will be my last comment in this AfD discussion. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Significant coverage" is a relative concept. For example, many of the cited sources meet the WP:100W bar; this one , for example, tallies at 170 words; this one and this on each at 105 words. Do you have other criteria rather than word count to establish significant coverage? — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 23:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good question. I'm using WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS as the guideline that establishes significant coverage for any one source. Rupples ( talk ) 00:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting because otherwise this looks like another restaurant AFD closing as No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz Can anything be done to slow down the restaurant nominations? I am clearly being targeted: Rubinstein Bagels , Askatu Bakery , Volunteer Park Cafe & Pantry , Lockspot Cafe , etc. This is not sustainable and there has to be a better way to go about discussing notability of restaurants than indiscriminately nominating at AfD. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another Believer , in my 18 months closing discussions at AFD, it's not unheard of for one editor to mass-nominate the work of another editor but it's usually done with new, inexperienced editors. And, with your articles, this has been going on for months. I doubt a word on a User talk page will change another editor's mind so I think your only alternative is to go to ANI. But I think this issue has already been brought to that noticeboard without a satisfying result or else it still wouldn't be happening. I'm sorry I don't have a quick, painless solution. There are a few admins who would boldly take action in a situation like this without community consensus but that's not my approach to this job. L iz Read! Talk! 07:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A real case of WP:OWN . It's not targeting, I also have recently nominated Australian restaurants too. It's WP:ADHOM as well. How is this not sustainable? Any article created by anyone at any time and in any order can be nominated for deletion. If this had what you consider 100% notability it would have sailed through as a WP:SNOW keep. If you don't like articles being nominated for deletion, maybe you should create your own website of every restaurant/cafe that existed in the USA. There are options outside Wikipedia. LibStar ( talk ) 07:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would strongly support the idea of holding off on further restaurant nominations and instead sorting out an RFC on what makes restaurants notable. We need to have some guidelines. There is no question that some restaurants are notable, and most are not, but if we're forced by multiple nominations in a short time-frame to make a lot of decisions with no consistent measuring-stick to use, we're going to end up with rubbish, inconsistent decisions. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We already have guidelines - WP:NCORP and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS (and WP:NOTTRAVEL , and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE , and WP:ROUTINE for coverage). We don't need new guidelines just because there's several non-notable restaurants that have had articles created about them using "top 7 pizza restaurants in neighbourhood" articles. SportingFlyer T · C 13:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Elemimele, many proposals for specific notability guidelines fail to materialise. Asking to hold off nominating restaurants for a while is just a tactic to keep them without challenge. At the very basic level, we have GNG and the guidelines SportingFlyer has named. LibStar ( talk ) 13:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are clearly targeting me and unwilling to voluntarily back off even after I've asked you to leave me alone many times. Please stop or I will be seeking an interaction ban. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LibStar . I'm pleased to see you've placed notability tags on two of the articles User:Another Believer highlighted above rather than going straight to AfD. I don't believe you are targetting a single editor, but are acting in good faith and basing nominations on proper grounds. However, if as an AfD nominator, you are aware, or should be aware, that the articles are written by/substantially contributed to by a single editor then it could be perceived as targetting if many such articles are put up for AfD over a short period of time. Rupples ( talk ) 14:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How am I targeting Another Believer if I've also recently nominated Australian restaurant articles with similar reasoning? Another Believer you are definitely displaying WP:OWN of articles you've created. Your comments do not deter me from nominating any article of any topic or created by any editor. LibStar ( talk ) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please leave me alone . --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please leave me alone and stop your WP:ADHOM . Stop acting if you own these articles. LibStar ( talk ) 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for purpose of WP:TNT , this could potentially work as an article but as it stands right now, this article is a disaster. Tear it down and start over. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 10:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gah! If "this could potentially work as an article", then you should be voting keep. This is a discussion about notability, not the current state of the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The entire point of TNT IS "could potentially work but is in such a dire state that the best solution is to wipe it and start over" TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Voting delete when "this could potentially work as an article" seems ridiculous and unfair to me. This article is not "hopelessly irreparable". Either this is an entry about a notable topic which could easily be trimmed and/or improved appropriately, or the topic is not notable. @ TheInsatiableOne : Please consider changing your vote to keep if you believe an article could exist for this topic. Thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My vote remains unchanged. Delete for the purpose of TNT. " For pages that are beyond fixing, it may be better to start from scratch."  TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 14:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bummer, but had to ask. I must say, though, the page is definitely not beyond repair. Editors could easily and quickly trim appropriately. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NCORP 's WP:AUD prong. It's just a local restaurant that hasn't received any specific coverage outside of generic local media restaurant reviews. If we have an article on this, every restaurant in every city with a food columnist would be notable, and that's not how we operate. SportingFlyer T · C 11:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A reminder to the closer that NCORP is more restrictive than GNG. SportingFlyer T · C 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per article creator as meeting GNG. Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a well sourced and improved page, meets GNG. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If it's acceptable under Wikipedia policy for notability of restaurant articles to be established from local media dining out recommendations in "Best of listicles" and brief meal reviews, I take it can only conclude that WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS (which I've used as the guideline to assess sources for meeting the GNG here) might as well be redundant. Rupples ( talk ) 18:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC) edited to clarify Rupples ( talk ) 07:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC) and again. Rupples ( talk ) 19:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And for me, the salient piece of that guidance (which is by no means redundant, one assumes you are applying a degree of giddy levity to this comment) is "Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications (see also #Audience)."... And the excellent source assessment below brings that very weakness to light. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral for now . I created a source analysis table for this article. I am not well-versed with such local restaurants and how they relate to WP:NCORP hence the neutral !vote . So my assessment here will be mostly based on the standards set under WP:GNG and the general guidelines of WP:NCORP . Also, please feel free to update the "?" to either good or bad. Also, if I'm being harsh on the restaurant reviews, let me know. Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Conyo14 : I'd mark The Infatuation , The Stranger (an alternative weekly with a three decade run), and Seattle Refined as reliable, unless someone can provide evidence otherwise. Some of these are perhaps not ideal sources, but they are being used for commentary and operational history details, not for verifying contentious/controversial claims. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Updated 7/18/2023 10:12AM PT Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2021/10/how-post-alley-came-to-make-some-of-the-best-pizza-in-seattle ✔ Yes https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/reviews/post-alley-pizza ? Official restaurant review site, I'm not as familiar with review sites WP:ROUTINE ✘ No https://www.seattleweekly.com/food/restaurants-m-s/ Brief mention among several restaurants ✘ No https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/travel/whatsdoing/wd980510.html Brief mention ✘ No https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/seattle-s-best-pizza-from-thick-crust-to-thin WP:ROUTINE mention ✘ No https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/as-seattle-restaurants-reopen-from-pandemic-mode-we-look-back-at-some-of-the-best-neighborhood-eats-you-should-revisit/ Brief mention ✘ No https://seattle.eater.com/maps/best-breakfast-sandwiches-in-seattle Another restaurant reviewer The publisher is Vox which is reliable, just unsure of the WP:LOCAL here Brief mention ✘ No https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-sandwiches-seattle-summer ? WP:ROUTINE mention ✘ No https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-lunch-downtown-seattle ? WP:ROUTINE mention ✘ No https://www.pmq.com/seattle-minimum-wage-law-challenges-small-restaurants-pizzerias/ Quote from owner is the only mention ? ✘ No https://www.seattletimes.com/life/will-halloween-in-seattle-be-canceled-by-covid-19-not-exactly-but-heres-how-the-holiday-will-be-different/ Refers to owner and has nothing to do with Post Alley Pizza ✘ No https://www.kuow.org/stories/as-the-pandemic-drags-on-restaurants-open-despite-uncertain-times Refers to owner and has nothing to do with Post Alley Pizza ✘ No https://seattlerefined.com/eat-drink/post-alley-pizza-claims-to-have-probably-the-best-slices-in-town Site is an advertisement-zone (businesses ask the site to be featured) ✘ No https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2020/08/portland-restaurants-serve-fried-chicken-specials-in-memory-of-chef-cameron-addy.html Brief mention ✘ No https://seattle.eater.com/2021/6/22/22545827/bens-bread-plans-phinney-ridge-bakery-fall-2021 Local Vox Media source Brief mention ✘ No https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2021/07/bens-bread-opening-phinney-ridge-seattle Brief mention ✘ No https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/comfort-food-favorite-french-bread-pizza-is-back-and-the-one-you-make-can-be-the-best-ever/ ? Brief mention, but might work better for the statement ? Unknown https://www.thestranger.com/food-and-drink/2023/03/29/78922914/food-fighters Owner's statements not regarding Post Pizza Alley ✘ No https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2021/04/saint-bread-bakery-opens-on-portage-bay-seattle Owner's statements not regarding Post Pizza Alley ✘ No https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/best-bites/ WP:ROUTINE mention ✘ No https://www.seattleweekly.com/food/10-seattle-bites-under-10/ Feels like an advertisement ✘ No https://www.thestranger.com/food-and-drink/2018/01/26/25754930/pizza-pie-face-off-searching-for-the-best-slice-in-seattle Restaurant reviews ✘ No https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/4-great-spots-to-grab-a-scrumptious-breakfast-sandwich-in-the-seattle-area/ ? In my opinion, it is WP:ROUTINE but uncertain ? Unknown https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/seattle-ten-dollar-meals-takeout ? ? WP:ADVERTISEMENT ✘ No https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-pizza-in-seattle ? Restaurant reviews ✘ No https://seattle.eater.com/maps/best-pizza-places-seattle-restaurants Restaurant reviews ✘ No https://seattle.eater.com/maps/pike-place-market-where-to-eat-seattle Restaurant reviews ✘ No https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/the-best-breakfast-sandwiches-in-seattle Advertisements galore ✘ No https://www.pdxmonthly.com/travel-and-outdoors/last-minute-spring-break-destinations Brief mention ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Delete - based on the excellent source analysis table of Conyo14 . It's a LOT of work to put that together so thank you, Conyo. I had asked above for 3-to-5 of the best sources, but I guess that got buried in the discussion. The source analysis clearly shows that this establishment is not Wiki-notable per WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NCORP at this time.  I also wanted to let Another Believer know that their work creating 50+ restaurant Good articles is appreciated; you have done alot of excellent work for a long time bringing attention to many other restaurants that are Wiki-notable to our readers and the encyclopedia is better because of it. Any way you slice it, unfortunately this one doesn't make the cut. Another Believer, please see my comment above on why I don't consider Seattle Refined as a reliable source. Netherzone ( talk ) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your kind words. I, too, appreciate the work that's been put into this table, but I do not agree with the assessment in its entirety. Also, several sources seem to be missing from the table and I'm not convinced the sources currently used in the article represent all available coverage. I've forgotten where I left off in my source search because I'm having to defend quite a few entries at the moment, but that's no one's problem but mine. I'll be requesting a restoration in the draft space if this article is deleted, so I can revisit expansion at a later date if needed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't bother putting in newspaper clippings. That is very difficult to verify. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, we're just going to pretend some sources don't exist and present this as a complete assessment of all available coverage? Here's where I exit the discussion (again). This whole restaurant AfD fiasco has just become a predictable "game" of the same editors voting the same way over and over again in circles, perpetuated by a handful of editors who seem to enjoy spending a few seconds initiating drive-by deletion discussions. The hounding has felt relentless for months. Sure, a handful of entries have been "successfully" deleted but the vast majority have been kept. Yet, even after demonstrating many successful rescues, too often the "reward" for saving an entry at AfD is ... another AfD nomination by one of the same nominators. Not exactly my idea of a good time. I'll try to resume work here at a later date (in draft or main space), but I have other fish to fry right now. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Stop taking this to heart man, everyone creates articles that make it to AfD. The source analysis table analyzes sources that are verifiable. Besides, I still enjoyed creating it :) Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have updated the source table to mark Seattle Refined as not independent and reliable. The Stranger is indeed reliable, but I'm still uncertain about The Infatuation Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wonder if you would take a look at whether https://seattle.eater.com/2021/6/22/22545827/bens-bread-plans-phinney-ridge-bakery-fall-2021 amounts to significant coverage as the article is about the "collaborating" partner Ben's Bread. There's only a one sentence mention of Post Alley - it tells us there is to be a collaboration but that's all. No further analysis. I did try and put in a 'dissenting' opinion but it keeps overwriting what's already there, so gave up. No obligation to change anything, just wanted to put forward my view. Thanks. Rupples ( talk ) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think because the statement it's paired with is simply that two companies did some kind of collaboration. It only requires the brief mention, not something that's terribly in-depth. I didn't expect it to be changed to good though. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah. It changed after you put the table up. Flicked over automatically to "good" when the reliable 'box' was ticked. I've changed the wording. Also changed the first source to sig=yes as I'd previously assessed it so. Trust you're OK with this? Rupples ( talk ) 23:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh yeah go for it! Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand, the first Seattle Metropolitan article is currently marked as not independent... because the author offers personal opinions? Journalists do this all the time, especially w/r/t restaurants, but that doesn't mean the source is problematic. Even Rupples said , "Surprised you hadn't made more use of it.  That source counts towards notability IMO. " I don't understand why a few editors are trying so hard to delete this entry and others I've worked on. Multiple editors have shown an interest in content improvement on the talk page, and even one delete voter above said "this could potentially work as an article".--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's.not.personal. Please don't take it as such - certainly not from my POV and others I know from here who have voted at other AfDs. It's a number of people trying to apply (often to understand/finesse) guidance resulting from consensus, arrived at over years and a million wrangles. If you let it become personal, it'll just bend you out of shape and ruin your day. /end holier than thou/ Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not taking anything personal here (well, except for the hounding by a couple editors, which I'm actively addressing by building cases for ANI / interaction bans). I'm trying to point out inconsistencies and seek clarification. Seems there's a fairly even split of keep vs delete votes (more deletes, but a couple I take less seriously because of editor behavior issues and voting patterns which may or may not be apparent to other AfD participants and closing admins). I certainly don't base my self esteem on restaurant Wikipedia entries, but I will say these restaurant AfD deletions and discussions feel more like attempts to tear down, rather than constructive spaces for building and collaborating. The toxicity is maddening, and yet we just keep circling the drain instead of seeking a positive path forward. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't agree with your assertion the AfD nominations are an attempt to "tear down" anything or to "gut coverage of the restaurant industry" and I don't see bad faith nominations/hounding. The AfD merely questions and seeks opinion as to whether this article meets accepted notability guidelines. After evaluating the article and sources, I'm convinced this does not and hence my view is it should be deleted. That plainly and simply is it. By the way, "voting patterns" can operate just as much for keep as delete. Also, while !votes are an indicator of opinion, it's the strength of each side's argument in close keep/delete !voting that should determine an AfD's outcome. Rupples ( talk ) 17:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I understand the process. As someone who's been on the receiving end of many unnecessary AfD nominations for many months now, I can assure you, there is hounding involved whether or not that's apparent to you. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If hounding is involved there would be cause to override other considerations and !vote keep on principle. No way dismissing your concerns because you obviously feel this is the case. Not in a position to judge - would need to weigh-up other editors' opinions and review how previous claims of hounding were determined to see how the harassment policy is applied in practice. Rupples ( talk ) 03:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If I might weigh in here, Another Believer has shown a tendency towards OWN, taking delete votes as personal attacks rather than impartial judgements. TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 12:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but no, I very much welcome collaboration. I don't take delete votes personally, I take people following me around and nominating my work for deletion unnecessarily personally. Big difference. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't seem to be pointed at you in particular, but rather restaurant articles which can be a thorny issue in AfD. This is more likely an unfortunate coincidence than any sort of malice. TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 13:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine if that's your assessment. I'll continue to share my own experiences and observations, since I've been on the receiving end of the hounding, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't believe you welcome collaboration and you don't welcome reviews or critical critiques of your work. You seem to be happily building a directory of eating establishment which against all criteria for an encyclopeadia and as more times passes I'm more and more sure that your that have some kind of coi. I have zero faith that your trying to do the best for Wikipedia. scope_creep Talk 15:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please leave me alone. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is what I thought.  Last year when we did the doughnut stand Afd, I did an analysis of your articles and noticed that you have written an article on almost every eatery in Portand, Oregon, including the dead companies.   Is everyone one of those, hundreds of articles, notable? scope_creep Talk 16:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Chaps, can I please, please counsel a 'time out' here? 24 hours' break? At least a focus on the current AfD? The role of peace maker sits ill with me, so apologies if I'm doing this badly, but WP:ANI is an unkind place and I'd hate for this to end there. kthanksbi. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Second above plea. Restrict comments to this article please. Rupples ( talk ) 16:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Apologies in advance for being blunt, but this is the kind of article that risks making Wikipedia into a laughing stock. (Actually, the photograph with its caption "A slice of pizza, 2022" did indeed make me laugh out loud - thank you whoever put it there for cheering up my day, though I suspect that wasn't the intention.) It is about what is probably a very nice pizza restaurant, but there's nothing interesting or special about it - it is like any number of other pizza restaurants in any number of other towns; there is nothing notable about its location, its history, its founder, its menu - nothing at all - so the article consists entirely of run of the mill stuff , which is dwelled upon in painful detail - for example: Post Alley Pizza is a pizzeria in the back of a parking garage at the intersection of Post Avenue and Seneca Street in the Central Waterfront district, approximately three blocks south from the Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle. The interior features Phish posters . I think the only thing it doesn't tell me is the colour of the walls in the rest rooms. And then there is the "Reception" section - around half of the content, and nothing but gushing praise . Wikipedia is not a directory; there is no requirement - indeed, there is no wish - for an article on every venue to be included. Please, consign this to the bin. Dorsetonian ( talk ) 18:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You've not really offered any sort of source assessment here, but I'm happy to address specific content concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Rupples and Dorsetonian, and fails WP:GNG via the source analysis, fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS . So, we need another two independent, reliable sources with significant coverage that will satisfy the article. I would change my vote if there is a secondary reliable source that states why this pizza place exists. I visited Seattle multiple times and heard no notability about this random local restaurant. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Conyo14 , I find 2 sources that are listed as WP:ROUTINE on the source analysis chart that I would change to a check mark as significant coverage: Seattle’s Best Pizza by Neighborhood : A decades-old slice shop tucked behind a parking garage recently acquired serious culinary bona fides—and new owners with connections to London Plane. Post Alley didn’t get fancier, exactly, but now local grains power a crust that could hold its own in the sort of restaurant with wine lists and a bread program... 4 great spots to grab a scrumptious breakfast sandwich in the Seattle area : Ruel and Andrew Gregory started turning pizza dough into sesame-seed-topped English muffins in late summer, selling them only Saturday mornings beginning at 10 a.m. The menu specifics change weekly, but there's always bacon and sausage plus a veg option or one of the muffins slathered simply with butter and cinnamon sugar... This source is unique in that it describes breakfast sandwiches, made with the restaurant's pizza dough. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First Source: is WP:ROUTINE in context of the article. It lists off several pizza places per neighborhoods and is not WP:SIGCOV . Second Source: The one you provided isn't the same as the source analysis nor the wiki article. Yours' I can't access. The one I hope you're referring to 4 great spots to grab a scrumptious breakfast sandwich in the Seattle area is a WP:ROUTINE mention in the source. Beyond that, does it really state to the validity of an article? Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First source: No, WP:ROUTINE refers to routine announcements and events, which is not the nature of the coverage in this source. Second source: I provided a link to  the The Seattle Times archive, which is available with a $1 temporary subscription, for the url I included above. Again, not an announcement or event that qualifies as WP:ROUTINE . You asked, "does it really state to the validity of an article?"  Notability for organizations only relies on whether there are enough articles to meet the WP:SIRS requirement. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 19:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you advertising a subscription service when it's unnecessary? Almost every newspaper site has a way around that (disable JavaScript). Regardless though, even brief mentions do not count towards the sustainability, validity, and notability of an article. Gotta have WP:SIGCOV . Conyo14 ( talk ) 19:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hah! Good one. I'm afraid my coding skills are limited to FORTRAN , MAP and COBOL , which I learned for a summer internship in the mid-1960's. Rather than learn another programming language, I'd rather use my remaining brain cells to make apple crisp, so a $1 subscription now and then seems a reasonable way to achieve that goal. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 14:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another trick is to clear the cookies for that website in your browser preferences. ;-) Netherzone ( talk ) 15:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] C'mon, you can do better than this :) The first source you highlight, The Seattle Met can't be used twice to establish notability. If you click thru the link in the article, "recently acquired serious culinary bona fides", lo and behold one arrives at the first source in the source analysis table, already acknowledged as meeting GNG.  The second amounts to a couple of sentences basically telling us about an addition to the menu followed by a recommendation to go there for a sausage sandwich and coffee.  Granted, it supports content but does nothing to establish notability.  Rupples ( talk ) 19:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can only agree to disagree.  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 19:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Respectfully, @ Grand'mere Eugene , these are not significant coverage.  Netherzone ( talk ) 01:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've resumed article improvements after avoiding the entry for two weeks.  I've done some content restructuring, added more sources, included mention of another former owner, noted the dough recipe's use at a new restaurant, among other improvements.  Apart from the couple editors who are clearly trying to disrupt my editing experience, I'm more than happy to collaborate with others on the talk page regarding specific content concerns, in order to make this entry more polished.  Thanks!  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My !vote remains unchanged, the sources do not reach WP:NCORP nor GNG. Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All good! Didn't mean to suggest these edits would change any votes, was just offering a status update + an invite for talk page collaboration. Having given this a bit more thought on my gym break, I think I'll remove the construction template for now and just revisit things when this discussion has ended. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a well sourced and improved page.  There is no RS guideline which rejects local coverage.  RS is RS.  Lightburst ( talk ) 04:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete