www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit House Saloon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is good-faith disagreement over whether the provided sources are enough, and a poor heat:light ratio, which makes relisting a poor option. I suggest resolving scope issues before returning to AfD if needed. This isn't the place for misconduct allegations from anybody; take those to the noticeboards, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bit House Saloon[edit]

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

Bit House Saloon (edit | 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)

Defunct restuarant and bar. Non-notable. Supposed bar of the year, but couldn't survive. References are ultra local trade news, PR sites and professional review sites like Conde Nast. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 19:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"First look: Bit House Saloon...", The Oregonian Yes Yes Yes qualifies as single local or niche ✔ Yes
"Portland's 2015 Bar of the Year: Bit House Saloon", The Oregonian Yes Yes No would qualify as single local or niche, but we already have one (and that one is the same as this, we tend to treat multiple instances of coverage by a single source as a single support for GNG). ✘ No
"Bit House Saloon", Willamette Week Yes Yes No one para, plus we already have a local source ✘ No
"Bit House Saloon, Reviewed", Willamette Week Yes Yes No one para, longish, but we already have a local source ✘ No
"Tour The Decor of Ambitious, Historic Bit House Saloon", Eater Portland Yes Yes No would qualify as the single local or niche source, but we already have one ✘ No
"Jesse Card OUT at Bit House Saloon", Eater Portland Yes Yes No would qualifiy as the single local or niche source, but we already have one ✘ No
Playboy Yes Yes ~ two para in a list of fifty. Certainly helps, but possibly not enough? ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Comment on source assessment. Multiple of these would qualify as the one local or industry-niche coverage among three sources, but we need two that are outside the local area/outside industry-niche publications. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Welp, saw this coming. Seems a couple editors don't like that there are so many articles about restaurants in Portland, which is fine but doesn't mean this restaurant is non-notable. Entry has multiple independent reliable sources specifically focused on the topic. Nominator fails to flag which sources are "PR sites" or explain why "professional review sites" are problematic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline. I raised, with the AfD nominator, the issue of the number of Wikipedia articles on restaurants listed in Portland. (There are more listed for this city than for New York and London). But, I didn't refer to this article specifically.
As there's no separate guideline for restaurants/other eateries/bars I guess they're included under commercial organisations, so WP:ORG and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS apply. What concerns me here, and in similar articles, is the reliability and independence of the references used. Half the sources here are written by the same author, Alex Frane. These all look promotional and unreliable. Take source 10, the list of "16 essential bars". How many bars did the writer consider 20, 25, 50, 100? Not revealed. What selection criteria was chosen for the lists i.e. what does "best" or "essential" actually mean. Not stated. I put it that the bar's inclusion in lists of this type has little meaning. We simply don't know how the listings were compiled and the factors that led to the business being mentioned or not. I don't see anything by this writer that helps establish notability.
I assume The Oregonian to be a reliable, independent source and make the point that its print coverage is wider than Portland itself.
I have reservations about the other sources and nature of the writing. Eater Portland has many "best of/essential" list type articles. The Eater Portland "Bar of the Year" headline, on the surface, seems to confer notability, but further reading reveals the award was restricted to establishments opened in the past year or so. How many were in the running/seriously considered? Also, I'm not sure how reliable and independent that website is.
One of the Williamette Week references is about a subsequent business. However, the other by Matthew Korfhage, who also writes for USA Today on food related articles, does lend credibility and independence.
So, do 2 credible sourced references amount to widespread coverage and fulfil notability for this as a stand alone article? Borderline. It would help if other reliable published sources were added to the article, preferably from outside of Portland. Rupples (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a defunct organisation with no historical or enclycopeadic value. There is no analysis that provides any deep insights. It is a listicle article similar to what you find in Fodor's or the Michelin guide, except it is defunct organisation. What is the point of it? scope_creepTalk 17:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding sources to an article like this, is similar to trying to pump up a dead whale in the hope that it will float and acts like a whale, even though it is dead. There is no value in the article as a historical or enclyclopeadic entity. Its doesn't have any kind of analysis to prove that it has worth to history. Its a defunct article that fails WP:NCORP, particularly WP:SIRS. Even if was a live organisation, it would still fail WP:SIRS. The fake reviews, that are created by content writers, a strata of internet writers, below technical writers in the scheme of things, that creates these type of shallow "eat here "reviews, to give the place a veneer of respectability and give the idea that it is somehow a good place to eat. If folk don't see the food, they don't go, so its effectively a promotional device to sell the organisation. It is the lowest level of brochure advertising. It is quick and dirty, because within a few weeks a new restaurant will open that will attract folk, so they must put as promo as possible into the venue, so its done as quickly as possible and then with a couple of weeks it is something else. The article on this defunct organisation is a WP:PROMO brochure advertisement that fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 23:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is dead company and its non-notable. It has no historical or encyclopedic value. It has nothing of cultural value as something that needs to remembered by humanity. It hasn't advanced humanity by existing. It hasn't got a place in the cultural fabric of the city, as with most restaurants. Once it closes, its completely forgotten, unless somekind of mark has been made that is important, for example Café Guerbois. scope_creepTalk 20:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - While the article was written and notated well, I fail to see how a bar that was only in operation for 5 years and is closed now, would hold enough value to stay published in a global encyclopedia. If it was still open, I would consider its potential to have ongoing value but, since the restaurant was only open for just over 5 years and is closed now, I would probably recommend a delete. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScienceAdvisor: You're welcome to help determine if the transition from Bit House Saloon to Bit House Collective was a rebrand, or an end and start of completely different companies. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Bit House Collective is currently in operation and there are additional sources to add if this entry is to cover Bit House Collective as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would consider changing my vote to merge but, there is no other page. For the page to be saved, I would consider adding a bit about the Bit House Collective, then redirect the page to a Bit House Collective page where it would hold information about both versions of this venue. From what I saw, I am sure their drag shows are garnering them some media attention that could be used to notate updated information on the new version.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScienceAdvisor Seems you are in agreement with User:Grand'mere Eugene at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD about including details for both Bit House Saloon and Bit House Collective. Bit House Collective seems to have been replaced by Swan Dive, but there's more sources to add about both Bit House Saloon and now especially Bit House Collective (which is only mentioned in passing at this time). More sources have been shared on the article's talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the bar has changed hands a 3rd time and was rebranded again, the article should be deleted. There is nothing I see to establish exceptional notability to have a wikipedia page after 2 rebrands and changes in ownership. If anything, the building might be notable enough and, information about each establishment could be listed under a page for a page created for a page created for the building that houses these establishments. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I understand what you're saying, you've assessed available coverage of Bit House Collective, too? I think there's quite a bit more content to add about the Collective. I'll continue trying to expand the entry but in the meantime I've noted the rebrand in the introduction and created a subsection (with an 'expansion needed' tag) to give space to Bit House Collective. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Can editors please help determine if the 2021 rebrand means the business continued to operate by a different name, or if Bit House Saloon closed and should be considered defunct and totally separate from Bit House Collective? I'll try to revisit recent sources as time allows but I'm kind of drowning in article rescues at the moment, not to mention the other things I have to do "in real life". Please see ongoing Talk page discussion. If this article should cover Bit House Collective as well, then there are even more sources to add and "defunct" category should be removed. Shame this needs to be rushed because of AfD. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep If only because the nominator is clearly targeting AB's work and therefore engaged in WP:WIKIHOUNDING. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any content related arguments or only nominator related remarks. The Banner talk 19:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The content-related stuff is a moot point given that this AfD was evidently made in bad faith, i.e. to specifically target the work of one editor. Just like how a sockpuppet's nomination would be instantly thrown out, even if legitimate points were raised. It's just common sense: let's stop the wikihounding first, then come back to business (but perhaps after a few weeks at least, for all the dust to settle). KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 19:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meet GNG, even before using many recently found sources in the article. Sources exist demonstrating the notability of the subject, per WP:CONTN. It has three sources already, with plenty more listed on the article's talk page to improve the article. The "subject is defunct" argument puzzles me, since WP keeps articles on defunct restaurants-- we even have Category:Defunct restaurants in the United States populated by sub categories of defunct restaurants by region. But then I mostly edit school articles and biographies. Since we don't delete articles about defunct schools or dead people, I'm not understanding that argument, easily defeated by Reductio ad absurdum. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator seriously believes that "99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable and when they close, folk forget about them. They are transitory." [1] KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Silly me, I was expecting a reasoned argument... — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grand'mere Eugene, which three sources do you believe rise to the level of supporting a claim of notability? That is, significant coverage in an independent reliable source, two of which are not local or industry niche publications? Valereee (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NCORP, WP:AUD says, at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. I disagree with your advocacy of two, which seems to me an arbitrary inflation over the AUD guideline.
    As I wrote here on 2:14 pm, 19 December 2022, I consider The Oregonian to be a regional source, and we have two sources there, but I also I find the Playboy piece has enough text to meet the guideline for significant coverage. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ɱ (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references, since this defunct restaurant article has been updated since the Afd was posted. Looking at the first block to see if there is anything that prove that it has lasting cultural appeal
  • Ref 1 [2] Non-significant profile review. Fails WP:SIRS. Reviewed in 2015.
  • Ref 2 Dead link
  • Ref 3 Predatory publisher.
  • Ref 4 [3] Would have failed WP:ORGIND at the time. Reviewed in 2017.
  • Ref 5 [4] Passing mention. Article from August 2016.
  • Ref 6 [5] Passing mention. Chef worked there. Article from Nov 2022
  • Ref 7 [6] Profile review. Would have failed WP:SIRS. Article from 2017.
  • Ref 8 [7] Head-chef at bit house. From March 2021
  • Ref 9 [8] Full review from 2015
  • Ref 10 [9] New businesses in portland. Profiles would have failed WP:SIRS at the time. Article from October 2015

None of these refs prove the business is currently notable. A WP:BEFORE, Gbook search, Google CSE and archive search doesn't find a single reference that proves the restuarant has a lasting cultural impact. It was a local restaurant that existed for six years and has been completely forgotten. It dead defunct business and there is nothing published that can prove it is currently notable. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Currently notable" is not a thing. Notability either exists, or it doesn't. ɱ (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I am sincerely interested in your stance that the article fails notability guidelines because it lacks "reference that proves the restaurant has a lasting cultural impact"'. I respect your expertise, and I need to know what part of GNG or NCORP explains that criterion. In the meantime, following WP:THREE, here is my offering of sources that establish notability, in a more conventional sense as I understand notability guidelines:
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine you're not familiar with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (2nd nomination) fiasco? Scope creep would spit on the sources you've offered KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeegads, I think I need a drink— or maybe a donut. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also asked Scope creep to respond on the article's talk page re: ownership. Thank you, Grand'mere Eugene, for taking time to find helpful sources and improve the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the Bit House Collective section further. We're up to 40 sources now, and I've identified another dozen or so to potentially add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passed WP:GNG and WP:42, and at this point this is a behavior discussion and not an editorial discussion. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD_/_PROD article creator AB makes a case which I interpret to be a misconduct compliant. Anyone can AfD this again later, but for now, default to keep for misconduct concerns. There is no reason to nominate this many articles, all from the same person, when discussion is already well-attended and fruitful, during an English Wikipedia holiday season, when the article creator has been posting "please leave me alone" to multiple deletion nominations. There are enough sources here to presume editorial integrity; if there is a problem then raise it again at a reasonable pace after a reasonable amount of time. The AfD process should not be available for use by a nominator who fails to address another editor's request to be left alone. I am not accusing the AfD nominator here; misconduct can be an error and not intentional. I am just saying cool it, slow down, and regroup with some moderator guidance. The conduct problem is a barrier to legitimate discussion here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • AB, I feel like you think more sources = proves it's notable. That is not the case. You've got 50+ sources here, and no indication of which are
  1. sigcov
  2. independent RS
  3. not local

I do not know why you think it's worth it to just keep adding source after source after source after source after source that doesn't provide those three. I want to help you, and you are literally making it impossible for me to do so because now I have to go through FIFTY SOURCES to see if any of them support notability.

Please just tell me: which three of these sources best represents sigcov in independent RS that aren't local/industry niche? Which three? Valereee (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point to the policy that specifies about locality and industry, please. ɱ (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually need stated policy. We just need consensus. And what we've generally seen for businesses is that we need to see coverage outside of their local area and outside of niche publications. That's what demonstrates notability. Valereee (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! A wordy excuse. Please point to policies and guidelines in your deletion discussions, especially when countering votes. I don't accept your logic about this for a second. ɱ (talk) 04:20, 25 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bit_House_Saloon&oldid=1129655994"