Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dive bars

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. I'm going to put this out of its misery as clearly jo one wants to close this. That in itself signifies a clear lack of consensus.

This is the kind of AFD where genuine issues raised about the scope and upkeep of an article don't grip against the discussion. I have also seen this kind of thing renominated later on and found much less community indulgence if the core issues haven't been addressed in the period between discussions. Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of dive bars[edit]

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

List of dive bars (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)

Arbitrary list; violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia should not be used for arbitrary lists of "stuff". Clearly started by someone in the Pacific Northwest region of the US and would be a complete mess if it ever became comprehensive. WP:NOTDIR. Skyerise (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness. I mentioned "Seattle" randomly, perhaps because I saw a picture of Linda's Tavern and the first link was to a Seattle bar. I just now saw that @Another Believer, the article's creator, lives in Seattle. This was not meant as a personal jab. My apologies.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offended, though I disagree with your assessment. Portland and Seattle have lots of dive bars! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: while I remain a "delete" because of the list's unconstrained scope, I'll note that this is otherwise a fine article. Nice pictures. All of the entries meet WP:NLIST. The topic overall meets WP:NLIST -- that is, it's a notable. Sticky floors - each one notable.
--19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Helpful list of notable dive bars, based on Category:Dive bars. Wikipedia has many lists of notable restaurants + List of bars, not sure why this one's any more arbitrary than those. List should be sourced and expanded. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bar and grill restaurants suggests otherwise. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skyerise: Well, yeah, I see how "bar and grill" is more arbitrary. There's no Bar and grill restaurant or Category:Bar and grill restaurants. That's not the case here. "Dive bar" is a specific concept. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is the category not adequate? Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Your argument seems to be that as there are other lists just as worthy of deletion we should keep this one. Athel cb (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I said. Please don't put words in my mouth -- I don't think all restaurant lists are worthy of deletion. I said if this list is arbitrary then so are many others. Care to comment on the appropriateness of this list specifically? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Total lack of any attempt at summary or citation. Skyerise (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the list could be improved. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I guess future !voters would take note of improvements. I can only !vote based on what I see. Skyerise (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really how AfD works but ok... ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Took just a few minutes to add 30+ sources to the article, which could still use further expansion and improvement. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a valid reasoning for deletion yourself. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an infinitely expandable list that violates WP:NOT. The Banner talk 13:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This would apply to any list of restaurants on Wikipedia. If the list of dive bars got too long, we could fork based on geography. Not a strong argument for deletion, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should tell that you wrote or strongly contributed to all these bar articles? The Banner talk 15:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't write all of them, so no... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE since what qualifies as a "dive bar" is fairly subjective and thus expansive. Also vaguely promotional, in the sense of "my favorite bar is important enough to be listed on WP". As for these other lists with similarly vague criteria for inclusion, delete those too. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep We have:
  • List of bars
  • List of pubs in Australia
  • List of former public houses and coffeehouses in Boston
  • List of pubs named Carpenters Arms
  • List of pubs in Dublin (city)
  • List of fictional bars and pubs
  • List of pubs in London
  • List of award-winning pubs in London
  • List of pubs in Norwich
  • List of pubs in Sheffield
  • List of pubs in the United Kingdo
  • List of barbecue restaurants
  • List of buffet restaurants
  • List of cafeterias
  • List of casual dining restaurant chain
  • List of restaurant chains
  • List of chicken restaurants
  • List of coffeehouse chains
  • And many, many more after that.
There's a strong case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. Literally none of the above delete votes have any real rationale that doesn't apply to essentially every list of food-and-beverage establishments here on Wikipedia. Perhaps the only somewhat valid point is that the term can be subjective, but if there is strong sourcing about each entry being referred to as a dive bar, then of course it would merit inclusion here, and can have references reflecting that here as well. Easily done. ɱ (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are also infinitely expandable lists and I'd be fine if somebody wanted to delete them too. List of pubs in Norwich is an example of a more confined list which doesn't have that problem.
Wikimedia has another project, Wikivoyage, that's much better for local listings (although not lists).
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...And most lists are "infinitely expandable" if you want to keep wikilawyering. The point is that we only include entities with Wikipedia articles and reliable sources to match. Nobody's suggested deleting List of cocktails, which technically can be expanded ad infinitum, but the point is that we curate it to only include the most notable of drinks. The same can be done, and is being done, here. ɱ (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1, completely agree, and this list is not promotional in any way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I also note that we need more content and organization on bar and cocktail culture here, not less. This is a move backward. Content on the food & bev industry is incredibly ramshackle here compared to, say, science or history topics, and I think the culture of Wikipedians hurts that, you see any sort of for-profit establishment and read everything, even a simple sourced list, to be "promoting" it. ɱ (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is difference between coverage of bar and cocktail culture or the food and beverage industry and coverage of individual small businesses for the most part only covered by routine local sources. I'd love to see encyclopedia articles on the bigger picture, not so much on individual companies (or mere links thereto) that don't say anything about the "culture" or "industry". To begin with, a better Dive bar! I mean, that's a pretty generic term that's easy to throw around and has a degree of subjectivity, unlike those you've listed. Reywas92Talk 18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how "dive bar" is any more subjective than "pub". ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all dive bars are pubs, aren't they? Per the article "Dives [dive bars] are like pornography: hard to define but you know it when you see it". That's pretty subjective. Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, all dive bars are bars. Someone else would need to explain the differences between a bar and a pub. I only add "dive bar" to entries when sources describe the establishment as such. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why is this not simply a section of List of bars, like "Biker bars" and "Gastropubs" are? Skyerise (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A collection of dive bars undoubtedly meets WP:NLIST (e.g., [1]), and it only contains notable entries, making it far from indiscriminate. Heck, there's even a whole book on Seattle dive bars alone: Seattle's Best Dive Bars. Not seeing any real deletion rationale, especially if the list is kept to notable entries with sourcing describing them as dive bars. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nom here. Is a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Subject is quite subjective and just because WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST with regards to similar lists doesn't mean this one should stay. User:Let'srun 19:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MJ, as the page meets the standards for list articles on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. There are really two key points here -- 1) WP:NOTTRAVEL, which specifically calls out this kind of information: "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like." And probably more importantly, as others have also noted, 2) "dive bar" is an inherently subjective term, with no clear definition. The fact that people write schlock like "the best dive bars in city X" listlcles (and even travel guides) doesn't justify a list of every bar that you can find that someone once deemed a dive bar. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a poor deletion rationale. WP:NOTTRAVEL does not apply as it is explicitly a list of notable restaurants which is allowed (no telephone numbers, star ratings, explanation of food, etc.). And being subjective means nothing either, otherwise List of movies considered the best would not have been kept seven times. We have reliable sources to designate what a dive bar is. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being subjective means everything. There are NO reliable sources for determining what qualifies to be on this list. It's a vague descriptor term that people apply loosely without any agreement about what it actually means from one person to the next. If one person out of ten calls bar X a "dive bar", while the other nine disagree, and happens to toss it in a travel guide, book, magazine article, or listicle, then it still shouldn't be on this list. But we'd never know that, because no one ever goes out of their way to say that bar X isn't a dive bar, or even attempts to classify bars as "dive" or "not dive". This is exactly the sort of dreck that fails NLIST completely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument falls apart based on dozens of other deletion discussions where lists based on subjective criteria are kept. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side comment. People, please stop saying "infinite". There have only ever been and only ever will be finitely many bars on Earth. While the number may be large, it's still finite. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It only list those which have their own Wikipedia article, making this a valid navigational and informational list. Category:Dive bars exist, and list articles are more useful than categories since more information is shown, making it easier to find what you are looking for. If a reliable source calls something a "dive bar", then its a dive bar. There has never been a rule saying a list article shouldn't exist because someone thinks its "infinitely expandable". Only dive bars notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article are listed here, not everyone that ever existed. Dream Focus 08:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a valid navigational list, and the category should also be deleted. See also my comment immediately above about why someone simply labelling a bar as a "dive bar" is woefully insufficient. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To help see just how asinine the claims of "it's not subjective, just go with teh reliable sourcez!!!11" is, I picked one entry more or less at random (Donnie Vegas, whose notability I question too, but that's a side point). The sole reference for it, [2], says all of "In short, Donnie Vegas has the soul of a dive bar." That's it. It has the soul of a dive bar. Well kiss my grits, that's good enough for me! But now I've got a new concern. Maybe we should spin out List of bars that aren't dives but have the soul of one. The possibilities are endless. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL and WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NPOV (per IP, what even counts as a dive bar? Besides “teh sources” that happen to call Snooters or Pete’s Pub n’ Grub a “dive bar”) Dronebogus (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've got an essay that doesn't really pertain to lists; a 'travel guide' guideline, which a list of places all over the U.S. and potentially the world would fail by definition, and NPOV, which, how does a list present a point of view? If you think it's biased towards PNW articles, looks like you're gonna need to pony up and start writing about other notable places. ɱ (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hate this kind of article, and clearly this particular version needs a lot of work, but the topic meets WP:NLIST. I find references to WP:NOTGUIDE unconvincing; a list of businesses is in my opinion clearly not a culinary guide. Suriname0 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Infinitely* expandable list with no standard definition for inclusion -- even the Dive bar article is fuzzy on what qualifies. That leads us to INDISCRIMINATE, and that lack of specific focus is enough to kill off NLIST. I will also support IP...158's NOTTRAVEL and Let'srun's NOTDIRECTORY. And before you get all WP:WHATABOUT on me, (1) I would have the same !vote for 'List of Bars' and 'List of Pubs in the UK'; and (2) most of the rest of Ɱ's list (like "award-winning pubs in London" and "pubs and coffeehouses in Boston" and "fictional bars and pubs") are specific. 'Dive bars' is not. *Note for IP...158: Sorry, but they open new bars every day thus 'infinite' is a viable adjective, especially since the arguments above for 'keep' seem to think that if any source calls a place a dive, it's eligible for this list. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The arguments here that are based in policy (and not the ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT opinions or fears of infinite expansion) are focused on whether or not this article is appropriate per WP:NLIST. I don't see how this list of a type of bar falls into the four examples provided in WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is not a database, list of statistics or summaries or a log. All of the locations on the current list have supporting articles on the project so are considered notable, the question is whether a standalone list of a type of facility is appropriate. While I don't have an opinion of what should happen to this article, this relisting statement might be seen as expressing a POV so I'll let another administrator close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep seems a rather unmanageable list, but the discussion above sways me. We have a category for dive bars, why not have a list? Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not talking from IDONTLIKEIT. I like dive bars, and I even like some of the ones on the list. My objection is policy-based and rooted directly in the text of WP:SELCRIT: "Selection criteria... should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." [emphasis added] Even the Dive Bar article doesn't know what the term means. Explain to me how this is unambiguous: "The precise definition of a dive bar is something on which people rarely agree, and is the subject of spirited debates." I will withdraw this objection when someone unambiguously defines the term in the main article and thus this list. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Last1In. The meaning of a dive bar is not clear-cut, and I don't think just having a source using that term is adequate selection criteria for a list here. The criteria for this is overly broad – this adjective can be used for many places that are dated, dark, cheap, local, simply decorated, or otherwise downscale or generic. Quite a few of these are cafes or restaurants known for food, which practically flies in the face of the descriptions at dive bar, like Nacho Borracho which isn't even a bar at all, but a restaurant that serves alcohol! I've even been there (and a lot of other dive restaurants just like it). I guess one dive-y thing about many of these is that they only have routine local coverage and are hardly notable enough for their own articles. Reywas92Talk 23:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The objections seem to be surmountable with inclusion criteria. It's not infinite because we can just use the WP:CSC. It's easy to decide what's a dive bar because we can say there must be sufficient sources calling it a "dive bar" to be listed as such in the lead of each article (or something like that). Of course we shouldn't have a list of all dive bars, but Wikipedia is full of lists of notable examples. Only weak because I'm only 75% convinced of my "sources call it a dive bar" argument above -- as per dive bar, "The precise definition of a dive bar is something on which people rarely agree", which makes it tough, but if sources carry us forward enough to have an article on dive bars and a category for dive bars, a list seems ok. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point on sourcing is on point. I wonder how many of the list would remain if we were to require two sources for each bar listed. Would there be any left? Skyerise (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest we forget, newspapers are not secondary sources, they are primary sources per policy in most instances. In the case of this list, there are two sources that might be argued to fall under the Historical Reports exception. Otherwise, the list is a collection of the primary opinions of newswriters based on a nonexistent definition of 'dive bar'. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring two sources for every item definitely seems like moving the goalposts here. You shouldn't change the requirements, they should be consistent with other articles like this one. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only moving the goalposts, but also incorrect in suggesting that the stricter source criteria would eliminate all entries. Dive bars do exist, and some of them are indeed notable. I don't know why that's so bothersome to some editors. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that dive bars 100% exist. So do bad restaurants, some of which are also highly notable. The reason we should not have lists for either is that there is no encyclopaedic (unambiguous) criteria for either. The fact that the current list article uses WP:PRIMARYNEWS for nearly all cites is a side issue that can be resolved with good research. But that research is for naught if we can't define the term per SELCRIT, something no one has done. That is literally my only argument here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Completely arbitary inclusion criteria potentially that could lead to an enormous list of junk. Its scrap. It the complete ass-end of Wikipedia with no historical value , useless to man and beast. scope_creepTalk 22:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly disagree. Not arbitrary, because "dive bar" category and list inclusion are based on what sources say about each subject. Also, not prone to becoming a list of junk if maintained properly. Also, not without historical value; dive bar is a level 5 vital article, so there's clearly value in covering the topic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll try and take the parts of that one at a time. • Inclusion is arbitrary because there is no definition of 'dive bar' in any reliable source. • Most sources currently used are WP:PRIMARYNEWS and all suffer from the same lack of definition. By analogy, reviews in perfectly respectable magazines that call a movie 'obnoxious' would not substantiate creating a List of obnoxious movies. In both cases, one or more primary sources use an undefined term to make the claim. • Until there is a definition of a dive bar, the list cannot be curated proprerly and thus will become (or is already) junk. How would you challenge an editor adding a local Slug and Lettuce based on a single newsrag review calling it a dive? You couldn't, since the entire rest of the article is similarly sourced. • Dive bar is an encyclopaedic article because it explains what dive bars are and what reliable sources say about them. It does not try to enumerate which bars are dives, something this list is claiming to do in wikivoice. In fact, that article explicitly states that there is no definition. There is simply no way around SELCRIT on this one. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree with the concerns above that the definition of a "dive bar" is not clear enough to merit a list like this. The fact that this list contains everything from joints that only serve alcohol to fairly popular restaurants signifies that there's no real way to determine an inclusion criteria here that doesn't indiscriminately include random establishments. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTDIR. An exhaustive list would contain thousands of entries, and a source describing an establishment as a "dive bar" is a hand-wavy and arbitrary criterion. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why so many people make the argument "that an exhaustive list" would be too long. That's so obvious. So would literally any other list on Wikipedia like this. Which is why this is relegated to notable entries. That's not a reason for deletion. Similarly, if a place is advertised as a dive bar, in the book New York City's Best Dive Bars ISBN 9780970312532, and has an entire The Guardian article, then I'm pretty sure we can call it a dive bar. That goes past what is needed. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even a list containing only notable entries would be incredibly long if we include every single establishment described by some listicle as a "dive bar". List of restaurants advertised as dive bars could maybe work, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, totally disagree. I would very much welcome expanding this list with other notable establishments which have been described as a dive bar in secondary coverage. I've seen much, much longer lists on Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which leaves a list of zero bars, since there are no secondary sources cited in the current article. Not one. That's beside the fact that no one has defined (or apparently can define) the term. At least SamX has suggested a list that could meet SELCRIT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what else to say except I disagree 100%. There are notable businesses which have been described as dive bars in secondary coverage, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. This is a fact, not a matter of debate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've provided two books in my comments that list and discuss notable dive bars in two major cities. Those could easily be considered and used as secondary sources. Books published by reliable presses and articles by major newspapers can also hardly be called listicles. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because to be notable, it actually has to be notable. A single listicle does not count toward notability. It needs multiple reliable sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An exhaustive list would contain thousands of entries Yes, and if it included imaginary bars, that, too would be inappropriate. Thankfully, it's neither. Straw man argument. a source describing an establishment as a "dive bar" is a hand-wavy and arbitrary criterion - it's WP:V. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like some editors are focused on the potentiality of an endless list instead of actually evalutating the existing sources used justify each list item. In fact, the discussion seems to have focused more on the idea of this list than the sourcing that that is present in the article. I thought the focus was supposed to be on notability not whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on Dive bars. As I said, I'll leave this discussion to another closer to handle. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the 'infinitely-expandable' commentary is a fuzzy way to invoking SELCRIT, like saying, "If we can't define what should be in the list, we can never remove things that should not be there." I think the Dive bar article is important, but that article itself shows why a list of dive bars is not: The precise definition of a dive bar is something on which people rarely agree, and is the subject of spirited debates. By analogy, Calvinball is a good article, and List of Calvinball venues is not. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Infinitely expandable list, spam magnet, no clear criteria for inclusion, inclusion likely to be unverifiable or POV, need I go on? Stifle (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because half of those points, as already pointed out, aren't actually points. I'm fine if there's the argument that setting clear inclusion criteria would be difficult (although, I personally disagree as I have found plenty of secondary sourcing). But as Liz pointed out above, claiming that it's infinitely expandable or even a spam magnet is disingenuous. It's not, and the latter point (being prone to spam) isn't even an actual reason for deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be FANTASTIC. When you post the sources that give an unambiguous, objective definition of a dive bar, I think this entire AfD goes away. If you could add them to Dive bar as well, that would be ideal. Thank you! Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely disagree with Stifle. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: demanding an unambiguous definition of "dive bar" is unnecessary; the inclusion criteria should be that each venue has received significant coverage in reliable sources because it's considered a dive bar. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the sourcing for the included items is shaky at best. From a policy standpoint, the question is whether this is much of a list if we strip out anything that only has passing mentions, rather than significant coverage. I haven't had the time to do that review, but from what I read in this discussion, I'm not alone in that.~TPW 20:25, 1 September 2023 (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/List_of_dive_bars&oldid=1173465994"