Lucier (restaurant): Fails GNG, coverage is only local as per WP:AUD .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Oregon .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly notable, based on the extensive coverage it received.  WP:AUD is wrong.  Notability can be established through coverage in local media, particularly when the local media have an excellent reputation for reliability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is WP:AUD wrong, it is part of an official guideline.  "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary ."  LibStar ( talk ) 05:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You do realize The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, yes?  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : LibStar , You may be interpreting "local" for the location of the publication, but for newspapers and magazines, WP:AUD clearly implies the area of circulation , hence the terms regional and statewide .  This article clearly meets WP:NORG .  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 00:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator).  I agree with Eastmain, the topic is clearly notable based on in-depth reporting in multiple independent and reputable major publications.  Based on their nominations (and even some withdrawals), I think nominator is pursuing AfD before completing thorough assessments of available coverage.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing but local coverage. No evidence that it meets NCORP. And the likelihood a restaurant that was open for 7 months is actually notable is pretty much nil. Valereee ( talk ) 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course "the likelihood a restaurant that was open for 7 months is actually notable is pretty much nil", but this venture received significant coverage. I strongly disagree with your assessment of secondary coverage in major publications. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did it get any coverage outside of Oregon?  LibStar ( talk ) 16:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We've already been over this.  I am not going to keep repeating myself across the many (30?) articles by me you've tagged for deletion recently.  You keep throwing around "AUD" and dismissing The Oregonian as a "local" paper when the publication has statewide circulation.  It is also the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation.  If you want to have a wider discussion about whether or not The Oregonian counts as a regional/state source, fine, but in the meantime please stop targeting me and tagging entries, some of which are (IMO) very clearly about notable subjects.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And we've already been over the fact that many editors don't agree with you that coverage only in even TO of a Portland restaurant rises to the level of NCORP.  I've said the same for NYC restaurants covered only in the NYT.  If a restaurant is notable, it will get coverage outside its home publication, no matter how important that publication is to that local area.  Valereee ( talk ) 20:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we've been circling the WP:GNG vs. WP:AUD vs. WP:NCORP drain for months now.  I've asked for a wider discussion about this because I'm tired of restaurant articles I've started getting nominated for deletion, yet most often kept.  ( I've probably been through 50 or so in the past year. Didn't help a now-blocked sock puppet was contacting editors to falsely accuse me of being paid to edit the entries, but let's set that aside for now. )  You can keep saying "many editors don't agree with" me, but most of the articles involved in these discussions have been kept.  I've even promoted a handful to Good article status after they were nominated for deletion.  So, perhaps many editors don't agree with you.  Doesn't matter, my point is we're all exhausted by having this same discussion over and over and over.  I wish we could address this in a way which doesn't have me defending multiple entries at a time, all the time.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We need a more general decision on how to handle restaurants.  They're sort-of the opposite of academic professors: Restaurants always generate a lot of stuff in newspapers because people like to go out to eat, so a major role of a newspaper or magazine is to review places where you can do it, review the new restaurants, regret the closures, announce the changes.  Celebrities eat too, so wherever they go, they leave a trail of restaurants basking in the reflected publicity.  We need some general guidance on what makes a restaurant stand out from the crowd as a really notable institution.  Elemimele ( talk ) 18:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The sheer number of references are irrelevant and misleading.  Most are trivial: a single sentence in articles about other subjects only tangentially related to this restaurant.  Those that are substantive are all in the categories of (1) it's opening and (2) it's closing 7 MOS later.  Under WP:NORG none of this amounts to substantive coverage that would establish notability.  This is comparable to a one-day news story that got purely local coverage, and was picked up by one statewide newspaper.  A restaurant that went out of business in seven months is simply not notable for an encyclopedia, molecular gastronomy ,$25 martinis and Dale Chihuly glass sculptures notwithstanding.  Banks Irk ( talk ) 15:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Banks Irk : Yes, there are sources which discuss Lucier for just a few sentences, but you've disregarded multiple , in-depth pieces and reviews by Oregonian journalists and food critics (several of which are paywalled, to my frustration).  A search for "Lucier" in the Oregonian archives yields over 100 returns; I am currently sifting through those to try to expand the article further.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I haven't overlooked or ignored the non-trivial articles, nor the dozens of new refbombs added today (the vast majority of which are indeed trivial and probably should be stricken as excessive coatracking) Whether X used to work there, or Y bought the building or Z is the new restaurant the owners opened lateris not notable.  Such trivia is representative of how the restaurant could get over 100 Google hits in The Oregonian for a 7 months run. ) None of these references establish notability for a purely local defunct eatery that cratered almost immediately after it opened.  So, there are some longer restaurant reviews by local critics that the setting was spectacular, but the pricy food sucked.  Again, that just doesn't establish notability.  Banks Irk ( talk ) 19:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Banks Irk I would like to know, how were you able to review all of the paywalled Oregonian sources?  I'm asking because I'm accessing them through the Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library, which makes verification difficult for other users.  There are quite a few in-depth profiles specifically about Lucier, which I'd like others to be able to access, too.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  Lexis-Nexis.  You're wasting your time.  99 44/100% are completely trivial.  The others are, as I wrote earlier, "it's being built... opening soon...finally opened", "pretty building, pricy food sucks", and "it closed (we're not surprised because the pricy food sucked)".   A newspaper does not generate 100+ substantive articles on a restaurant that was only open 7 months.  Banks Irk ( talk ) 19:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for confirming.  With all due respect, I strongly disagree.  I find the amount of thorough coverage by multiple reporters quite impressive for a short-lived restaurant.  We clearly see things differently, but I happen to think most editors who have access to these in-depth profiles would be inclined to vote keep.  Seems I won't be able to sway your vote, so I'll move on to other things.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Business was open for a whopping seven months, and yes, sources are all local with no outside third-party coverage, while not proving why the subject is actually notable for Wikipedia article despite the borderline refbombing.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Beemer69 Again, The Oregonian is not just a "local" paper.  It offers statewide reporting and regional circulation, and has the second largest distribution in the Pacific Northwest.  Can you clarify what you mean by "not proving why the subject is actually notable" -- how is the subject not notable when it has received so much in-depth coverage, both in the form of reviews and pieces focused on the restaurant's operational history?  Since your vote, I've worked to expand the article further, using some very in-depth articles which are (unfortunately paywalled), if you're able to take another look.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes both GNG and NCORP notability guidelines per multiple, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable publications, here [38] , here [39] and here [40] .  All three count towards notability as set out in WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS .  The Oregonian covers the regional requirement in WP:AUD .  Rupples ( talk ) 21:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will assume good faith, but I find it hard to take these refs as much more than a joke.  One is not an RS, and the others are trivial.  Banks Irk ( talk ) 00:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Generous of you to assume good faith.  Your opinion is welcome and valid.  Each of us interpret the sources presented in our own way and all that can really be said is that my interpretation differs from yours.  I see the very fact that this business folded in such a short time as significant.  The take I'm getting from this article is that the owners introduced what seems to be the most expensive, high end, glitzy, upmarket restaurant that Portland had ever experienced, but the concept failed.  That to me is notable.  You are free to disagree.  Which one of the sources do you deem not reliable?  Rupples ( talk ) 01:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first 2 seem very local as per WP:AUD .  LibStar ( talk ) 08:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't answer the question I asked, unless you are presupposing "very local" sources as inherently unreliable.  Rupples ( talk ) 14:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rupples, don't worry, even if you supply a dozen in-depth profiles published by major publications like The Oregonian and other glossy magazines, you'll still be told those don't count... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : WP:AUD states at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary .  I haven't seen anyone holding the position that Oregonian is anything other than a statewide paper, at least, or contradictory information.  Since this was the sole reason given in the nomination, and it has apparently been mooted, could the nominator then concisely state their policy based reason for deletion, if it exists?  In other words: WP:AUD was mooted, what reason for deletion remains? ☆ Bri ( talk ) 16:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe the rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT ?  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD , as has been indicated also above.  gidonb ( talk ) 10:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's been more than two days since my comment above asking what policy reason should govern deletion here, with no response.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 19:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, sorry, @ Bri , didn't see that you'd asked for clarification.  Just because a newspaper covers an entire state doesn't mean NOTHING it covers is "local".  The Oregonian, published in Portland, is for Portland a local source.  Just like for NYC, the NYT is.  Literally nothing outside of Portland seems to be in the now-81 local sources.  This restaurant was open for 7 months and had no coverage other than local.  It was open for 7 months .  Valereee ( talk ) 19:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's quite an expansion of the literal words at WP:AUD .  I don't even know how you would formulate that.  How does one tell the difference between "local coverage" and "non-local coverage" from an indisputably regional or national source?  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 19:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree, I don't understand Valereee's interpretation of AUD.  The Oregonian is most definitely a regional publication and not "of limited interest and circulation".  I'll reiterate my request to have a wider discussion about this (AUD vs GNG vs NCORP) instead of having this same debate over and over across dozens of AfDs.  Also, Valereee, how long the business operated is irrelevant.  What matters is sufficient secondary coverage, which Lucier has very clearly received.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I as well disagree strongly with this interpretation of WP:AUD.  In addition, this guideline is about organizations and companies.  A restaurant is a cultural institution beyond simply one company.  ɱ (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So if a restaurant opens in NYC with reviews published in The New York Times , The Villager , and AM New York Metro , none of those would meet WP:AUD , because they are published in the same location as the restaurant's locale, but if a review were published in New York Daily News it could count toward AUD because it's published in New Jersey??  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : closure has absolutely nothing to do with notability, ever.  This article passes all relevant notability criteria.  If anything, the surprising story of closure has led to more press, and thus more notability.  To say that something is short-lived is not a valid excuse, and not part of any policy or guideline.  Do you want to delete the New York Crystal Palace article?  That only lasted five years.  I dare you to try.  ɱ (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep SIGCOV Lightburst ( talk ) 20:15, 27 April 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: keep