Talk:Post Alley Pizza

Nonsense

Should a Wikipedia article repeat the following ludicrous assertion/opinion? It is the one place on earth where the special is legitimately “special.” Yes, it's a direct quote but even as an opinion, it's patently nonsense. Does the inclusion of such drivel take away from the encyclopedic merit of the article rather than add to it? Views? @Another Believer :) Rupples (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You're suggesting the article has encyclopedic merit even though you've cast a delete vote? By the way, I've added many more sources to the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no. With this article I'm not seeing any encylopedic merit. The pizzeria comes across as not notable. The inclusion of the quote doesn't effect my !vote either way. I just think it would be better omitted, if as is likely, the article is kept. Nevertheless, I will still make an effort to evaluate the additional sources you've put in because I admire your dedication to improving the article. To this end, are you able to give more detail of what the NYT source says as I can't access it e.g. how much specifically relates to Post Alley Pizza? My assumption at present is it's no more than a mention. I base this on the reference title, the way you have placed the source in the article and your not using a quotation from it. Cheers. Rupples (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the source has just a couple sentences specific to Post Alley Pizza. The reason I've included as an inline citation is because I want to demonstrate some reach outside the Pacific Northwest and because I think using a reliable and well-known New York-based publication to confirm "New York-style" pizza is appropriate. The author of the piece also happens to be a notable Pulitzer-winning reporter but we can set that aside. I'm hoping the expanded article will be kept. I don't expect to change your vote, but thanks for taking another look. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rupples I was able to locate a live URL so I've updated the citation appropriately. I noticed in the deletion discussion you've noted the lack of detail about the building, the decor, etc. I'm not suggesting this source establishes notability, but this sort of coverage allows further expansion of the current entry (which is just what I've been able to cobble together under the time constraint of AfD) in some of the ways you may prefer. This source provides more opportunity to flesh out the Description section re: interior and menu, as well as the History section with more details about ownership (including how they relate) and operational history. It also helps clarify the connections to The London Plane and Phish.
There are likely other sources documenting the history of the building, block, and previous occupants of the space; there are also likely other sources covering the people associated with Post Alley, with minimal detail about Post Alley, but I am trying to stick to a core overview right now. Thanks for acknowledging my attempt to save this article. Hopefully a bit more time and energy can result in a more polished entry for the project. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Despite saying I wasn't going to go through the sources in detail, I capitulated and have done. Thought I owed you that much. You got it! - that Seattle Met source is not only no.1 in the reflist but no.1 source fullstop i.e. the best source. Surprised you hadn't made more use of it. That source counts towards notability IMO. Reckon the article needs two more such sources to pass GNG. I know you work really hard, but I think it's a real struggle here. 'Fraid I don't generally count the "Best of . . . ." type listicles as contributing towards notability - I don't rate them as significant and indepth. Rupples (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Promotional tone

As suggested at the AfD, I'm adding a comment here regarding the promotional tone. (No offense to the creator who has obviously worked hard on it.) I'm sure the pizza is great and the owners are good people, who like hundreds of thousands of small business owners do nice things for their community and donate to charitable causes. However I really wonder if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to have actual menu items and ordering options in an article like The menu has also included breakfast sandwiches made with English muffins; varieties include: B.E.C.; sausage; vegetarian; and one with bacon, cashew butter, roasted delicata squash, and honey. and Other ingredients for Italian sandwiches have included sesame hoagie rolls, finocchiona salami, spicy coppa, ham, provolone, red onion, and coleslaw. "Hoagie jazz”, an anchovy spread with calabrian chiles and garlic, has been served on the side. Dipping sauces include a homemade ranch and calabrian chili buffalo sauce. I do know your work here Another Believer, and I admire what you do, and you are a much, much better writer than I that is for sure, but this reads like a blog post for one of my local NYC bodegas. Why not just say they serve a variety of breakfast and lunch sandwiches in addition to pizza?

I also think the article leans much too heavily on long quotations that don't really say anything that distinguishes this pizza joint from thousands of others. Things like these quotes sound like trivial filler:

• the men and women who make the pies and ring up your order have an understated air of friendliness about them.
• Our small shop and corner of Seattle has been under construction since the day we took ownership four years ago. It has been confusing for everyone.
• Our commitment to local food products and vendors has helped insulate our costs to some degree. We've explored offering breakfast sandwiches with some success. We did raise our prices. But we have also leaned into our 'alley' location and focused on takeout. We installed a take-out window and reduced our dining room to only a few barstools.
• remains the industry standard for food, service, and ambiance. It is the one place on earth where the special is legitimately 'special.' With a different one each day... these things are so good that you don't even have to know what the day's special is before ordering it; the only trick is to get there before they run out
• Post Alley wears its back-to-basics style like a fine tuxedo, and at a time when Domino's and Pizza Hut can make a pie enthusiast weep, the little parlor at Post and Seneca is just enough of a good thing.
• While Seattle may not be a mecca of by-the-slice pizza, Post Alley Pizza is well worth the trek to its tucked-away nook in the Central Business District. While you can't go wrong with the New York-style basics, including a near-perfect sauce/cheese ratio and crisp crust, the array of unpredictable daily specials make Post Alley stand apart from its peers. Any day might feature BBQ chicken pizza, bacon and potato slices, a pepperoni, onion, and jalapeno combo, some overloaded veggie creation, or basically whatever suits the chef's current mood.
• This spot works really well if you're downtown and in need of a quick lunch slice you can trust, or you need a few reliable New York-style pies for a birthday party. Be sure to add sides of ranch and homemade calabrian chili buffalo sauce for dunking, and what's even more exciting is that this place offers granulated garlic to shake on your slice—a necessity that we haven't been able to find at any other pizza place in town.

It all reads like trivial boosterism. I'm very sorry if this sounds overly critical, and granted I don't read that many articles on WP on small restaurants, but it just does not read like an encyclopedia article to me. The problem isn't that it's a small establishment tucked away in an alley, (I too like writing about fairly obscure topics) It's that it seems like an advertorial or native advertising. Netherzone (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone Thanks for your feedback here. I will be happy to address your concerns in more detail at a later date, but first this article needs to survive AfD. If you feel there's enough secondary coverage to keep an entry for further refinement and to address these issues, I would appreciate your keep vote. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues

The presentation by User:Netherzone above shows just how much this article relies on quotations and it occurred to me to question whether there are any copyright issues. I'm no copyright expert, but my hunch is there are certain passages in this article that may be close to or are a violation. I've raised this at The Teahouse, but have as yet refrained from naming this article. Notwithstanding copyright, one of the answers I've received at The Teahouse indicates this article likely has issues with MOS:QUOTATIONS. Rupples (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rupples I'm not opposed to trimming quotes or paraphrasing. Again, I'm happy to address specific issues but first the entry needs to survive the ongoing AfD discussion. I would also very much welcome collaboration from others to get this entry polished; this doesn't just need to be an exercise of telling me every little thing I've done not to one's liking. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to be careful to direct criticism to the article, not you. I honestly don't have sufficient interest in preserving this article because as previously explained I think it's non-notable per content and sourcing, and as such doesn't warrant a Wikipedia page. As I see it, the major concern is over the substance of the article, which can't be remedied by editing existing references. Rupples (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not taking your criticism personally, so no worries there! I'm just not going to waste time addressing specific content issues unless the community decides to keep the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's three specific instances which may be problematic:

(i) the block quoted second paragraph under the Reception heading beginning "While Seattle may not be . . ." compared to the review of Post Alley Pizza in this article. https://www.seattleweekly.com/food/10-seattle-bites-under-10/

(ii) under the Description heading, the quote in the second paragraph starting "Business suits and overalls . . . " when added to the quote beginning in the Reception section "Post Alley wears its . . . " forms the majority of the whole review by N.S. here https://www.seattleweekly.com/food/restaurants-m-s/

(iii) the block quote under the Reception section starting "this spot works really well . . . " from the Post Alley Pizza review at https://www.theinfatuation.com/seattle/guides/best-pizza-in-seattle

All may be fine, then again may not be. Rupples (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend removing all of these quotations. They read like testimonials and in my opinion don't really add anything encyclopedic (I know that is probably not the way some others may feel). If they are to be used at all, why not simply say:

"Post Alley Pizza has received positive reviews in the media; Seattle Weekly named them the "best pizza hideaway", and Portland Monthly called the pizzeria a "star newcomer" in 2023." That is really all that is needed, IMO. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to decide on the copyright issue because the quotes shouldn't be there anyway. They turn an article that's already probably not necessary into a blatant advert. I have recommended at AfD that we get some sort of general consensus on notability of restaurants. My impression is that the article's creator here has included these block quotes in a genuine attempt to show that this restaurant is not run-of-the-mill. I see the motivation, but think we need some real guidelines to avoid over-egged articles

The Seattle Weekly block quote is also a misrepresentation of the source. The source is merely a typical "here are a few cheap places we like" article, whereas by using the wording "the newspaper's 2018 list..." this Wikipedia article implies that the Seattle weekly holds some sort of regular annual competition that the pizza place won. Again, it's understandable that an editor wants to present the case that their subject is notable, but something's gone wrong when our notability rules provoke exaggeration in our articles. Elemimele (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rupples, Netherzone, and Elemimele: Again, I very much welcome article improvements and I'm happy to address specific concerns, but unless you three are willing to vote to keep this article, I'd just be wasting my time working on an ill-fated page. Either you think there's enough sourcing to justify keeping and improving, or you don't think the topic is notable and your concerns are moot. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fair comment. In your position I'd feel just the same. I'm dubious about this particular restaurant, but feel that in fairness to editors like you, who want to write restaurant articles, we need proper guidelines on restaurants, otherwise you're going to end up with random slices of your work sent to AfD in a very arbitrary and haphazard manner, which is neither fair on you, nor useful to Wikipedia in general. Elemimele (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele Editors are constantly nominating restaurant articles I've worked on for deletion, often indiscriminately. I say this because the majority of them are kept, and I've even promoted dozens of entries to Good article status after they survived AfD. Leads me to believe some editors are being lazy or sloppy in terms of assessing all available coverage before jumping to AfD. I've asked a few repeat offenders to stop, but of course they don't seem to care. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)