Talk:Rise Bar

End of History section
Many thanks for the second opinion and your helpful comments. Regarding this edit: while I agree that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a travel guide or directory, that's not why the now-deleted sentence was included. The majority of the History section is spent describing the conflict and attempts to change the bar's operating hours, but none of the sourcing I was able to find actually described the final outcome. The final news article source mentioned that the bar offered to change its request, but it did not report any formal approval of the 4a.m. closing time for Friday and Saturday only. I included the sentence about current operating hours to give some resolve to how the matter ended up. Armadillo pteryx  15:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! I understand that logic entirely, but I think it is overridden by the general principle that Wikipedia should not be host to directory information like that - it relies on a point-in-time capture that either has to be frequently updated or else become outdated.


 * A second thing I wanted to bring up - I'm considering nominating this article for AfD because of my doubts about its notability. I know you've worked hard on it, though, so I wanted to discuss with you first. Do you have thoughts about my comments on the sources I made in the second opinion? DNAinfo is key - I don't view their coverage as significant. It seems like routine coverage that belongs in a newspaper, not encyclopedic content. Two more of the sources can be pretty clearly categorized as trivial coverage per WP:NCORP. However, I'd like to hear your perspective before proceeding. Additionally, if there are any other sources you wanted to add to the article, that would be helpful and could tip the notability towards 'keep.' Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your comments.
 * As far as the operating hours go, I certainly agree that "directory" information does not belong in our articles, but I don't see it as directory information in this case for the reasons described above. (This is ultimately subjective, of course.) Also want to note that the information is presented with the template, a date, and an archived copy of the source URL, so in my view it is no different from any other piece of information attached to . All that said, I don't really care if we leave the sentence out, and I have no intention of reverting your edit.
 * To reply to your notability points, I would like to point to the WP:AUD section of WP:NCORP, which says: [a]ttention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
 * Since this article is also sourced to standalone coverage in a national source (The New York Times) in addition to DNAinfo (which is local but also reliable and secondary), the sourcing as is does meet the NCORP criteria. I am not opposed to digging for more sourcing as well. Armadillo  pteryx  19:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On the operating hours sentence - fair enough. I don't view it as a huge deal either. I've had a look around for other sources and I wasn't able to find much that I would consider significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. As to the sourcing, I still disagree, I'm afraid - the NYTimes may be a national paper of record, but they are still NYC-centric, so I view their coverage of Rise Bar as being essentially local news. I'm going to nominate this article for AfD, but don't take it as indication that the article is of poor quality - I'd just like to see what the community as a whole thinks of this article's notability. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)