Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown Bagelry

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. I wish that keep favoring editors would have followed the prodding Vanamonde and explained how the sources do meet our guidelines. Delete favoring editors did tend to explain why the sources were insufficient. However, there is enough analysis explaining how sources are compliant with our policies and guidelines to suggest it would be improper to discount the weight of those editors and so we end up at no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Bagelry

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN company, fails WP:CORP. There's coverage in strictly local sources, but this fails WP:AUD for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources outside the DC area. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA for whom this was the sole Wikipedia activity.

Deprodded with the breathtaking rationale of "I mainly recalled being taken to a bagel shop in Brick Lane by Edward after an all-night editathon. That is reasonably notable and so I supposed that this other place is too." (Honestly, it would be tough to respond without the use of obscenities, so I shan't.) Ravenswing 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as there's plenty of coverage in numerous sources. These tend to highlight the fact that the bagels are properly boiled and so this makes it better than most other bagel places. The current proprietor seems to be getting quite a lot of coverage because she's written a book about her experiences. And there's coverage of the place's history too such as this article from the 1980s, which has lots of nice crunchy facts, detailing the finances, numbers and equipment used to make their good bagels. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N I did some work to the article - added RS and fixed, layout, added a logo etc. I am able to find abundant RS: we follow the RS. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Splendid. Now, perhaps you folks can take a look at WP:AUD, which this article must satisfy: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, 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." What NON-DC area reliable source providing substantive coverage do either of you claim exists? Ravenswing 06:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DC area is a region. It spans several states – the business in question is in Maryland. Its population is over six million which makes it larger than most countries in the world – bigger than Denmark and New Zealand, say. Sources such as the Washington Post are effectively international because here I am in London, on the other side of the Atlantic, and I regular read and refer to it. The business is also covered in works such as Fodor's which are distributed internationally too. Note also that there's no "must" about WP:AUD because it says plainly that exceptions apply and so it is not mandatory. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some good RS the RSs speak to notability. Lightburst (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The improved version with sources including the Washington Post provide enough notability for this bagel business that has been in existence for 39 years. We should not just be covering large companies, some small ones can also be notable. Edwardx (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the rationale that the Washington Post is a regional source per Andrew Davidson's interpretation. The improvements to the article solidify this. PainProf (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTPROMO. The best bagels in Washington, according to local Washington newspapers? There is no coverage outside the DC area (as far as I know), and that is what makes it local coverage. WaPo is actually a national source, but when it's covering stuff in DC, it's a local source. This article, even in its expanded form, is nothing other than an advertisement for a bagel shop. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing the sources, I see now that the Washington Post never said it had the best bagels. In fact, WaPo barely covers it at all, outside of the 1981 opening [1]. Here's a more recent 2014 WaPo story about bagelries, and the headline is "Bullfrog Bagels, Bagel City and Bethesda Bagel are some of D.C.’s finest" [2]. (Should we turn those red links blue? No, of course not.) The Washingtonian Magazine also never called it "the best". In fact, it only rated it "not bad" [3], in 2006. I updated the article to remove those incorrect claims in the lead, and I upgrade my !vote to strong delete. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the improvements made to the article. Pesa881 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are all very local, no indication of notability for a global encyclopedia. Newspaper rates them as, "Not bad"? Wins third/second place in various voter polls? This is more a promotional ad than anything else. Ifnord (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Washington Post article is excellent coverage, but if you need coverage outside the DC area, then I think the coverage of Adler's book about the business does the trick. I think the above scuffle about whether the bagels are "the best" or "not bad" is irrelevant; notability is not determined by tasting the subject's food. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Adler is the owner. Her book can't contribute to notability, as it's not independent, and thus doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. There is no coverage outside DC. Even if we accept WaPo as excellent coverage, that's one, and we'd need multiple. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the coverage about her book, in the Washingtonian and Bake Magazine. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Her book appears to be published by a vanity press called Advantage that writes on their "what we do" page: Book authorship, for personal promotion, to create powerful ‘lead generation magnets’ for use in advertising and marketing, for securing favorable media attention and publicity, to promote a business, a cause or philosophy, for fun or fame or fortune…is the most proven, most powerful activity a person can take. Did you read that? The most proven, most powerful activity a person can take is vanity publishing. Well, they should try encyclopedia writing!

Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be even less than a self-published book: it could be a Twitter post for all we care. The reliability of the primary source being discussed by secondary sources has no bearing on the reliability of the secondary sources. I've taken a look at the coverage of the book, and plenty of it is usable for content on the bakery. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter spam. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Reader's polls on "best bagel" are mentions-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Someone mentioned above that the coverage about the owner's book but misses the point that none of the information is therefore Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable as there's plenty of coverage in numerous sources. Meet WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of Keep comments saying things like "plenty of coverage", "abundant RS", "excellent coverage" etc. This isn't about volume but quality and "coverage" or "RS" isn't one of the criteria for establishing notability. Neither are reviews of their bagels which don't include in-depth coverage of the company (the topic of this article). Neither are interviews, or mentions-in-passing. Can any of the Keep !voters point to what they regard as the two best references that meet the criteria so we can get a final chance to evaluate? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of whether the provided sources offer substantive coverage and are independent of the subject. Despite many !votes to keep, there is precious little discussion of the source material.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources appear to be either local coverage or self-promotional. I do not believe they demonstrate notability about this business. I agree with the reasons stated by previous delete votes. Rhino131 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references every one of them are either local or spam. Thecriterion for restaurants has to be notable outsidetheir region, or we'd become a directory or every restaurant in a city with a major newspaper. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to discount the Washington Post as a "local" source. If a Topeka business were covered in a Kansas statewide paper, then it would clearly meet the definition of "regional" in WP:AUD. I don't see why coverage of an area with a population of over 6 million should be inferior to coverage of an area with a population of less than 3 million, so IMO the Washington Post is a regional source for the DC metropolitan area (a region). That source, along with the local coverage in WTOP, combine to constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, at least one of which is more than local. I am sympathetic to DGG's point about "a directory or every restaurant in a city with a major newspaper", but likewise we can ask: Do we want to be a directory of every restaurant in a small state with a statewide paper? Currently, WP:AUD says yes, and to go against it would either be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or require believing that the media market of a major metropolitan area is not as important as the media market of a small state. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable company with several locations. The article has some very good sources, and they demonstrate notability: two magazines, and several Washington Post references. Wm335td (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources aren't good enough, as DGG says, and none of the Keep rationales can get past this. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL local business with no coverage from outside its region. Sandstein 20:03, 23 August 2020 (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.