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 keep. ✗ plicit 14:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Henry Thiele Restaurant

Henry Thiele Restaurant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

There are no reliable sources online containing information or coverage of this restaurant aside from a Vox article that only trivially mentions it (two sentences) along with dozens of other closed restaurants. One of the sources for this page, an archived page from the Oregon Encyclopedia community-driven website, has a bio on Henry Thiele along with what look like notable sources. I think an article about Henry Thiele specifically, with a mention of this restaurant, would be plenty appropriate. But not this restaurant by itself. PDXBart ( talk) 13:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per GNG (disclaimer: stub creator). Did you even try searching online? I very quickly found more sources to add. You can also find a source about the historic building on the article's talk page. This article should be expanded, not deleted. You might slow down on the deletion nominations until you're more familiar with the process, and please be sure to search for sources before jumping to AfD. Thanks! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 13:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Another Believer Carrying over conversation on my talk page since it's relevant here too:

  I did in fact run searches for RS for this article before nominating. The sources you've added do help, but aside from the book they all seemed WP:TRIVIAL to me. I agree that the book coverage, which I missed in my searches, could count as significant, and uncovering things like this is the point of AfD discussion. I would however suggest that if you're making good faith efforts to encourage better editing that revision notes like "yet another source; nominating editor sure didn't try hard..." might work better if following WP:NICE, WP:NEWBIES, and WP:AFDEQ. I appreciate your feedback regardless. I will leave this AfD open for consensus building that the book coverage in addition to other trivial coverage satisfies notability.

  As for slowing down, I am simply following the Wikipedia "motto and...invitation to the newcomers [to be] WP:BOLD", which also suggests more experienced editors do not "thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value". I am making good faith efforts to clean up articles in the area that I live. If you have further questions about my motives or more detailed constructive feedback, you're welcome to leave it on my talk page. I have not until now received feedback across my AfD nominations that they were made carelessly. PDXBart ( talk) 14:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I change my vote to speedy keep and close per nominator's own comment, "I agree that the book coverage, which I missed in my searches, could count as significant..." --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 15:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  I am not saying the existence of that sources makes the article pass notability. I am saying, depending on one's opinion of what counts as significant and reliable, it could count as a significant source. I will rest my case however and let the community handle it from here. PDXBart ( talk) 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kbabej ( talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kbabej ( talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I tend to agree with the OP, that it would make a whole lot more sense to have a bio of the clearly notable founder, than of the restaurant, but I don't feel strongly enough to vote "delete." However, I want to strenuously disagree about the dismissal of the Oregon Encyclopedia as a reliable source. It should be regarded as one of the best sources available on Oregon history. This is a publication born of the scholars of the state historical society and one of the largest public universities in the state. from their FAQ: "The Oregon Encyclopedia does not accept unsolicited entries. The encyclopedia is an authoritative publication, which means we adhere to a scholarly editorial process." It is run more or less like an academic journal, and adheres to Wikipedia's standards for sourcing more closely than any other source cited in this article. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 21:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Another Believer's comments above. — VersaceSpace 🌃 03:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The existing sources demonstrate notability. Plus this is a defunct restaurant so I doubt anyone has any commercial intent to list it. Zeddedm ( talk) 05:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes GNG with the sources already in the article. Spudlace ( talk) 22:21, 7 August 2022 (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.