Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilt (restaurant)

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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt (restaurant)

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Dead business. No indication of lasting importance. scope_creep^Talk 08:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To scope_creep rgd this and other noms. By citing "lasting importance" are you saying it fails WP:NOTTEMPORARY? Or are there problems with the sources? Because I see sources here from 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, which doesn't seem temporary to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I don't think it was ever notable but it could be. I don't think they're all non-notable but they could be. There is about 80-90 defunct business articles listed in the template on this article under the defunct section. There is currently 1 in 2 roughly, about(ish) 40-45% of the restaurants and bars in Portland are on Wikipedia and listed in the Current tab of the template. I've see an cogent argument recently, if the establishment has 1 in 1000 coverage then it would be likely be notable. That whole argument is out the window, because there is an attempt to list every busines. Why are we moving toward directory like structures? Wikipedia is not a directory. It cannot be by definition. More so, the Terms of Use explicity forbid advertising, yet there is 40-45% of all the establishments in Portland. Wikipedia cannot be another version of the Michelin or Froomer, or Fodor to DYK Travel guide. That is not its purpose. We are not an advertiser. Many of these bars are absolutely mediocre, they are plain boozers that happen to have an article because they used paid advertising and are well run. That doesn't make them notable. Many of them were only open less than 2 years. Most are absolute crock and have no place on here. scope_creep^Talk 03:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A wall of text here does not answer Bri's comment. Read WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Ongoing coverage is not a requirement.

ɱ

(talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean scope_creep. This odd essay cites no rules or issues or policies. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequately sourced and received national television exposure. Nominator seems to be agitated in some way that goes beyond Wikipedia's notability standards. This article is harming nobody and providing some relevant perspective for food business historians. I am thankful the article is here. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has years of GNG coverage. $ɱ$ (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: article creator) per GNG and AUD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 24 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) 18:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep years of GNG, national television coverage? This might be the time for A SNOW keep because this is the archeotype of basic C class article. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not having gotten a satisfactory explanation to my query about which policy is governing the possible removal of this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:06, 27 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.