431:. 1/local reviews of a local restaurant do not show notability -- to be notable , it has to be known outside its own service area 2/ promotional elements include: the personal life section, the way the anonymous attacks system is written to be actually praise for him, and use of PR references--Portland Busines journal like all similar publications is merely a placeto publish press release, the Colorado Tourism Office is an ever less reliable source. . 3/ for the book, one PW review that merely lists a few dishes is trivial review coverage- and However, the NYT reference was not present when I listed it, and might count for notability , if the other material mentioned here is removed.
504:
bestowed
Gourdet with its 2016 Advocacy Award..." So it's essentially a reprint of a speech he gave. Looking further, at the journal as a whole, I should have said, that the journal is composed mainly of PR and notices., with some news items about general business topics; its coverage of specific executives and concerns seems to be PR. I can certainly make mistakes with unfamiliar sources, but not this time. When I do, I acknowledge my error.
483:
PBJ is not one. Just click the article - the byline is for a "Staff
Reporter." There's no shame in not knowing that, but I'd urge you -- especially as someone with a lot of well-earned esteem around here -- to be more cautious in making strong declarations about publications you're not actually familiar with. -
482:
Some of what you say involves judgment calls, and I'll leave that aside. But when you state "Portland
Busines journal like all similar publications is merely a placeto publish press release" you are absolutely wrong. There are certainly local business publications that match that description, but the
548:
their advertising department) judged that their readership would be interested in a profile on this man is enough to contribute to an assessment of notability. (For what it's worth, many publications publish both high-intensity investigative journalism, and also profile pieces that don't offer much
234:
appeared in Top Chef several times, but never won. I don't think that qalifies for an article; generally we have only the winners. I am listing the other non-winners who have articles but show no obvious notability; I'm listing them separately, because checking might show that some of them might
552:
As a side note, I want to again state that there are plenty of business publications that actively damage their own reputations by either acting as content mills that accept custom submissions without much or any editorial oversight, and/or publish press releases in a way that doesn't distinguish
503:
I read that particular article. It's a promotional story or interview of the type disallowed by nCORP, where the individual is allowed o say whatever he chooses -- in this case "Gourdet shared his story today at a breakfast given by CODA, the longtime
Portland addictions treatment provider that
531:
of the
Business Journal, so it's irrelevant to our consideration of the editorial product. Yes, the publication will distribute press releases, clearly marked as paid content, for a fee. Other news publications that have an advertising department include the New York Times and the Wall Street
535:
Your personal opinion of this specific article has no particular bearing on the case for notability. Discussion of how much value to assign to a specific source would make sense on the article's talk page, but it's not very relevant here. The relevant consideration for an AfD is whether a
318:, either approach would have saved Knowledge's readers and editors from the hassle of a deletion discussion. It would, however, be good if somebody could improve the lead section to better reflect the significance of the subject. -
553:
them from editorial material. I understand why
Knowledge editors often view business-oriented publications with skepticism. But contrary to what was stated above, this publication does not do either of those things. -
203:
454:
sourcing, not just the sources currently used in the article. You're right, local reviews of a local restaurant may not demonstrate notability, but a simple Google search shows you there's adequate sourcing.
654:
640:
257:
402:
197:
352:
164:
369:
521:
111:
610:
96:
310:
due to significant coverage in
Portland Business Journal, Portland Monthly, and Street Roots, which are all strong publications per the standards of
544:, which you bring up, the Business Journal certainly does not have a "vested interest" in Gourdet. The simple fact that their editorial department (
549:
critical commentary. That's not a knock on the piece's factual accuracy or its judgment of the significance of its main subject, though.)
137:
132:
141:
647:
124:
332:(Prod would have been inappropriate. If nobody had noticed the prod for a week the article would have been summarily deleted.)
91:
84:
17:
218:
582:
does not automatically confer notability, Gourdet has received enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Besides the
185:
633:
398:
62:
105:
101:
617:
463:
291:
691:
179:
40:
394:
674:
621:
562:
515:
492:
470:
442:
423:
378:
361:
341:
327:
298:
271:
249:
175:
66:
58:
238:
Article is highly promotional, even for a field like this where promotional articles are not uncommon.
687:
613:
558:
488:
456:
393:, could you point out whatever seems promotional to you in this article? I'm just not seeing it. Chers!
323:
284:
36:
520:
My language above may have been stronger than necessary, which I regret; but I stand by my point. I've
225:
314:. I agree with Another Believer, this should have been brought up on the talk page or preceded with a
128:
601:
211:
605:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
686:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
191:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
670:
554:
484:
419:
337:
319:
541:
411:
120:
72:
596:
373:
356:
315:
54:
511:
438:
307:
267:
245:
537:
311:
158:
279:
DGG, I really wish you'd do research before nominating pages for deletion. Clear
666:
415:
333:
527:"merely a placeto publish press release" -- this is a statement about the
506:
477:
447:
433:
390:
262:
240:
540:
standard, which the
Business Journal certainly does. With reference to
594:
sources already cited in the article, I found significant coverage in
414:. Reliable sources have covered his cooking career and his cookbook.
524:, feel free to look there if you want evidence for what I say here.
657:, etc. Additionally, Lord Bolingbroke found additional sources in
682:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
450:, Before nominating an article for deletion, you should review
389:
I revised the lead a bit and added one review of his new book.
522:
documented some specifics about the
Business Journal here
154:
150:
146:
210:
258:
list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
694:). No further edits should be made to this page.
368:Note: This discussion has been included in the
351:Note: This discussion has been included in the
256:Note: This discussion has been included in the
536:publication, overall, matches up against the
353:list of New York-related deletion discussions
224:
8:
665:. I think this is an easy and clear keep. --
112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
370:list of People-related deletion discussions
367:
350:
255:
7:
24:
97:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
235:have notability otherwise.
87:(AfD)? Read these primers!
711:
629:. There's coverage in the
684:Please do not modify it.
675:15:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
67:22:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
622:02:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
563:00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
516:09:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
493:08:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
471:00:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
443:00:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
424:22:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
403:20:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
379:20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
362:20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
342:22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
328:20:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
299:19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
272:18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
250:18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
529:advertising department
578:. While competing on
85:Articles for deletion
55:(non-admin closure)
59:Extraordinary Writ
606:The Haitian Times
592:Publishers Weekly
395:Grand'mere Eugene
381:
364:
274:
102:Guide to deletion
92:How to contribute
57:
702:
645:Portland Tribune
638:Portland Mercury
614:Lord Bolingbroke
481:
466:
459:
458:Another Believer
376:
359:
294:
287:
286:Another Believer
229:
228:
214:
162:
144:
82:
53:
34:
710:
709:
705:
704:
703:
701:
700:
699:
698:
692:deletion review
659:Food & Wine
597:Food & Wine
475:
469:
464:
457:
374:
357:
297:
292:
285:
171:
135:
121:Gregory Gourdet
119:
116:
79:
76:
73:Gregory Gourdet
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
708:
706:
697:
696:
678:
677:
624:
588:New York Times
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
550:
533:
498:
497:
496:
495:
473:
461:
426:
405:
383:
382:
365:
347:
346:
345:
344:
301:
289:
276:
275:
232:
231:
168:
115:
114:
109:
99:
94:
77:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
707:
695:
693:
689:
685:
680:
679:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:Haitian Times
660:
656:
653:
649:
646:
642:
639:
635:
632:
628:
625:
623:
619:
615:
611:
608:
607:
602:
599:
598:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
574:
573:
564:
560:
556:
551:
547:
543:
539:
534:
530:
526:
525:
523:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
508:
502:
501:
500:
499:
494:
490:
486:
479:
474:
472:
467:
460:
453:
449:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
435:
430:
427:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
385:
384:
380:
377:
371:
366:
363:
360:
354:
349:
348:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
300:
295:
288:
282:
278:
277:
273:
269:
265:
264:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
242:
236:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:Find sources:
169:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
683:
681:
662:
658:
651:
644:
637:
630:
626:
604:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
555:Pete Forsyth
545:
528:
505:
485:Pete Forsyth
451:
432:
428:
407:
386:
320:Pete Forsyth
303:
280:
261:
239:
237:
233:
221:
215:
207:
200:
194:
188:
182:
172:
78:
49:
47:
31:
28:
652:Oregon Live
304:Speedy keep
198:free images
600:magazine (
688:talk page
584:Oregonian
452:available
375:Spiderone
358:Spiderone
283:here. ---
37:talk page
690:or in a
661:and the
580:Top Chef
542:WP:NCORP
532:Journal.
412:WP:BASIC
165:View log
106:glossary
39:or in a
429:Comment
316:WP:PROD
204:WP refs
192:scholar
138:protect
133:history
83:New to
667:Kbabej
603:) and
590:, and
416:pburka
334:pburka
308:WP:GNG
176:Google
142:delete
612:). –
538:WP:RS
512:talk
439:talk
312:WP:RS
268:talk
246:talk
219:JSTOR
180:books
159:views
151:watch
147:links
16:<
671:talk
655:here
648:here
641:here
634:here
627:Keep
618:talk
576:Keep
559:talk
489:talk
465:Talk
420:talk
410:per
408:Keep
399:talk
387:Keep
338:talk
324:talk
306:per
293:Talk
281:keep
212:FENS
186:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
63:talk
50:keep
631:NYT
546:not
507:DGG
478:DGG
455:---
448:DGG
434:DGG
391:DGG
263:DGG
241:DGG
226:TWL
163:– (
673:)
650:,
643:,
636:,
620:)
586:,
561:)
514:)
491:)
441:)
422:)
401:)
372:.
355:.
340:)
326:)
270:)
260:.
248:)
206:)
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
65:)
52:.
669:(
616:(
609:(
557:(
510:(
487:(
480::
476:@
468:)
462:(
437:(
418:(
397:(
336:(
322:(
296:)
290:(
266:(
244:(
230:)
222:·
216:·
208:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
178:(
170:(
167:)
161:)
123:(
108:)
104:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.