Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:05, 18 December 2022

Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro

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

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

These are entries in the Defunct restuarants in the "Template:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon". This is list of non-existant restaurants. Coverage is generally routine, profiles, small review profiles and general PR. They are not notable, if they were notable in the first place. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 13:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are closed restuarant article with no historical or enclyclopeadic value, as well:

scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would suggest these articles are nominated individually. We don't routinely delete articles about businesses simply becuase they've closed. Treate this as a procedural 'Keep' vote if you like. Sionk (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than 50 of them in this list. Assuming I did one a week, that would take me to the same time next year. None of these historically important. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're just assuming there's no such thing as a notable defunct restaurant in Portland? Yikes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC

Hopefully we will find out here. 99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable and when they close, folk forget about them. They are transitory. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (disclaimer: I've worked on these). I'm going to go out on a limb and guess nominator hasn't done extensive research here. Did you know Beast earned Naomi Pomeroy a James Beard Award?! I'm quite confident I could turn some of these into Good articles, but I'm not inclined to spend all the time and energy required to rescue them right now (especially given how this discussion's going). Also, nominator spends a few minutes nominating 14 articles for deletion, offering zero evidence, and I'm supposed to spend hours defending my work? Hard pass. I'll consider working harder here if the nominator takes a serious stab at a source assessment table for Beast, otherwise I have other things to do. If the community wants to mass delete articles about (I'd argue, notable) restaurants, by all means. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it for you, any day. Your one of the nicest editors on Wikipedia. I will do a thorough examination of it tommorrow afternoon. Ping me if I forget. scope_creep^Talk 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean an examination of the 4 citations currently used in the article, I mean a thorough source assessment based on all possible coverage per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Have see the articles I write? If there is any doubt that any of these notable, they will be kept. I conducted a WP:BEFORE on each of these. I was planning to do all them, but it takes a ton of time which I don't have. scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure whatever. Meanwhile I've added a bunch of other sources to Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro and that's just preliminary findings from a very simple google search. See also sources at Talk:Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think a better approach would be to add {{notability}} to these articles (and others in addition) and wait several months to see what happens. In the meantime I suggest withdrawing this nomination. E Eng 05:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EEng: It seems to be heading that way, but the cat:nn has almost 59k entries and grows by 150-200 entries a month, so I don't think that would address the problem saving defunct non-notable companies. Its not not anywhere else. It if ends up as a procedural close, I will nominate them individually, 10 a month until they are done. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. You could do the same thing you're doing anyway, just first add the notability tag, wait a few months, then nominate if the referencing hasn't improved, of course. That would give interested editors time to improve the sourcing.
Also, the fact that a place is defunct isn't relevant; only the sourcing matters, though for whatever reason there are a LOT of establishments with zero significant coverage, and these include current as well as defunct places.
Finally: what is the "59k" you're talking about? What category? E Eng 12:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The cat:nn maintenance category. Type in CAT:NN in the search box and it takes you there. I'm reluctant to put a note tags on each of these article as it would massively increase the amount of work I would have to do to delete them, particularly since none of them have left any lasting cultural impact. Not one of them, as far as I can see. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's one thing we need to get clear: "lasting cultural impact" isn't the test. The test is simply sufficient sourcing, and once something's notable via sourcing, it's permanently notable even if sources stop appearing. And the isn't to get articles deleted, but to get articles deleted that are on nonnotable subjects, and tagging {notability} in advance will save a lot of work by avoiding making nominations that will end in Keep, plus it's a powerful argument at AfD when you're able to say, "It's been tagged for notability for X months, and a few sources have been added, but it looks like it's still nonnotable even with those sources".

You're not planning to nominate everything in CAT:NN, are you? That would be a terrible idea. I thought we were focusing on this strange set of Portland (etc.) restaurants which, for whatever reason, seems to be rich with nonnotable topics. E Eng 14:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am. Of course not. I reviewed the first article at WP:NPP and took it from there. Nothing to do with the CAT:NN list. Forget that. Everyone of these fails WP:NCORP. They were non-notable when the company was in existance and they are non-notable now. We don't keep directories of dead companies, unless each one has made a lasting cultural impact, that is verified by references. None of the them have that. That is consensus. We are not a directory of dead companies. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I nominated them, is because they don't seem to use post-existance references that show that people are talking about them after they are gone. Instead they are using the sames kinds of references when the company existed including lots of reviews. While some of these types of references are undoubtedly valuable and can be used to show it is notable in the day, they don't prove the company is notable now. It doesn't prove that folk and the cultural landscape are changed because of the companies existance. scope_creep^Talk 16:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 :::::There's one thing we need to get clear: "lasting cultural impact" isn't the test. The test is simply sufficient sourcing, and [[WP:NOTTEMPORARY|once something's notable via sourcing, it's permanently notable even if sources stop appearing]]. And the isn't to get articles deleted, but to get articles deleted that are on nonnotable subjects, and tagging {notability} in advance will save a lot of work by avoiding making nominations that will end in ''Keep'', plus it's a powerful argument at AfD when you're able to say, "It's been tagged for notability for X months, and a few sources have been added, but it looks like it's still nonnotable even with those sources".{{pb}}You're not planning to nominate everything in CAT:NN, are you? That would be a terrible idea. I thought we were focusing on this strange set of Portland (etc.) restaurants which, for whatever reason, seems to be rich with nonnotable topics. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 14:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 ::::::I am. Of course not.  I reviewed the first article at [[WP:NPP]] and took it from there. Nothing to do with the CAT:NN list. Forget that. Everyone of these fails [[WP:NCORP]]. They were non-notable when the company was in existance and they are non-notable now. We don't keep directories of dead companies, unless each one has made a lasting cultural impact, that is verified by references. None of the them have that. That is consensus. We are not a directory of dead companies.  '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 15:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' The reason I nominated them, is because they don't seem to use post-existance references that show that people are talking about them after they are gone. Instead they are using the sames kinds of references when the company existed including lots of reviews. While some of these types of references are undoubtedly valuable and can be used to show it is notable in the day, they don't prove the company is notable now. It doesn't prove that folk and the cultural landscape are changed because of the companies existance.  '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 16:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)