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.
This article does not meet WP:NCORP. While I believe this is a borderline case, I do not think this article has sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Gothamist, ShermansTravel, NYCGo, and Newsday are all trivial coverage per NCORP's definition, while NYTimes and DNAinfo provide essentially local news coverage, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a newspaper.
Keep. The article passes WP:AUD, which states that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. That source is The New York Times, which pretty clearly fits the bill as such a source. I agree that DNAInfo is a relatively local WP:NEWSORG. However, it's one that covers the size of New York City, which is comparable in population to Israel and has nearly four million more people than Ireland. Describing a NYC-wide news source as "local" rather than "regional" for the purposes of this guideline feels somewhat odd if the purpose is to determine notability; we'd almost never consider The Irish Times or The Times of Israel to be limited in determining notability for corporations.
Whether this coverage passes WP:CORPDEPTH or not might at first seem a bit off-putting, but the example there that A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger would count as "substantial coverage" of the business makes me think that the multiple news articles from DNAinfo covering the prolonged controversy of the bar's liquor license would also classify DNAinfo as providing substantial coverage, by analogy.
Finally, I agree that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but this doesn't read like a news article and it isn't a sort of "notable for one event" article; the NYT piece doesn't provide coverage of the controversy over the licensing, after all, but instead serves as a review of the bar itself.
While this is a borderline case, I can't find anything within WP:NCORP that this clearly fails. The content does not appear to be advertorial anymore, so I don't see issues with WP:NOTSOAPBOX or any other portion of WP:NOT. Therefore, as this passes WP:NCORP and isn't encompassed by exclusionary criteria of WP:NOT, I lean towards a keep rather than a delete. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed !vote. It seems to me that when you take away the sources that are obviously trivial (RTL Luxembourg, for example), almost every other source fails a criteria on WP:NCORP's list ("inclusion in lists of similar organizations", "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies" for the DNAinfo articles"). So we're left with just one NYTimes article - and I have to ask myself whether they would cover the bar if it opened in Chicago or Seattle. But I understand your perspective. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Calling the NYT “local news” is a first. It’s a newspaper of record in the largest city in the United States. That coverage plus the other sources easily passes NCORP and make this a GA. —Kbabej (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10, the NYT does cover the local scene. Not everything they cover is automatically of national or statewide interest/notability. The NYT covering NYC is no different from the Dayton Daily News covering Dayton. —valereee (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This bar seems to have attracted only routine types of coverage in the local media, so does not need to be in an encyclopedia. Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article's subject seems to have received significant coverage in the media. Generally getting profiled in a source as high-profile internationally as the New York Times is an extremely strong sign of notability, and this article's subject seems to have received coverage elsewhere which have been used as sources for the article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is necessary, but not sufficient. NCORP states a single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. I believe that is what we have here, given that the other sources can be regarded as trivial per NCORP's definitions and examples. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, the keep !voters aren't saying that there's only one single independent source that covers it significantly, we're saying that it passes that WP:MULTSOURCES requirement that you've quoted. We have both the piece from The New York Times and six articles from DNAinfo. Unless all six of those DNAinfo articles are trivial coverage (and they don't appear to be so to me), then we wouldn't be relying on a single source. We're also saying that, in addition to passing WP:MULTSOURCES, it passes the separateWP:AUD requirement owing to the coverage from The New York Times. The sources seem to enough for the article to be written well and to be written from a neutral point of view to such an extent that the article's description and history sections can be built out without relying in a significant way on self-published sources or promotional sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the six DNAinfo articles are trivial coverage, since they appear to be coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies, one of the examples given for trivial coverage by NCORP. Re WP:AUD, there's clearly room for reasonable disagreement, and I would be interested to know if there is any precedent regarding how we treat highly nationally influential sources that are still regionally/locally-based. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing seems adequate to demonstrate notability. Also, I am rather shocked that having participated in the GAR and approved the article, the nominator has chosen to nominate it for deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Having described the nomination as a "borderline case", I am shocked that you did not take into consideration the time and effort expended by the article creator, a long-time editor of good standing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NYT in this case is local coverage, and I'm not finding any coverage that isn't local. Just becaue it's the NYT doesn't automatically make the coverage national or even regional. The NYT does cover the local scene. The bar is of only local notability. —valereee (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: article creator) per Mikehawk10 and others. As has been noted, this article is sourced to standalone coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources (mostly The New York Times and DNAinfo). While DNAinfo is local, the NYT is a paper of record with a national focus and international audience, so it does satisfy the WP:AUD requirement of WP:NCORP.
I think that when an AfD rationale is borderline at best, wikilawyering to delete a GA-quality article does not seem to serve to improve the encyclopedia, and it results in a clear net negative.
I also have some doubts about whether this AfD was started in good faith, as the nominator stopped participating in the ongoing talk page discussion for three days, during which they actively edited on other parts of the encyclopedia. They then waited until the precise 12-hour interval when this article was on the main page for DYK to nominate it for deletion, which doesn't seem likely to be a coincidence. I found that disappointing, to say the least. Armadillopteryx03:45, 15 November 2021 (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.