Talk:Yonder (restaurant)

Source
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.pdxmonthly.com/eat-and-drink/2022/12/portland-restaurants-closed-closures-2022
 * Not even a date for the closure of "Yonder", plus a row around the chef (not the restaurant). No in-depth description. As listing, not useful as source. The Banner  talk 00:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes
I proposed reverting these recent changes. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your revert again. This info is spammy and irrelevant. Cutting it out makes the article better and better readable. Reviews are not good and reliable sources. The Banner  talk 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Reviews are helpful. I don't see these details as spam or irrelevant. You've said similar comments at Bluehour and some other restaurant articles, even though other editors have disagreed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Curious if you have any thoughts here, since you removed the PROD tag previously. Or, The Banner, where can we go for some other opinions? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * might have an opinion. The Banner  talk 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviews are poor sources. Often they are not independent. The article in your version reads like spam. Dropping loads of references does not make a run-of-the-mill restaurant notable. And please, do not start and edit war. The Banner  talk 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I completely disagree. So where do we go from here? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources is a good option. The Banner  talk 18:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! Also, curious which sources used for this article you feel are unacceptable for Wikipedia (and why)? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested in these articles any longer, although I may come back at some point, perhaps next winter, with a group to examine each and every restuarant article in turn to see if it notable and try and delete the non-notable ones. What I will say is that product details for a company are highly promotional and breaks Wikipedia Terms of Use as promotional advertising content. Reviews are poor sources. Besides that it makes me more and more inclined to think your an undeclared paid editor, when you disagree with what clear consensus.   scope_creep Talk  18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You can keep thinking I'm getting paid to write these articles all you want. We've already been over this. I've asked The Banner to please leave me alone. Flagging to User:Liz as a related discussion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've not finished with it by a long way. Also this is collaborative project. If you want to be left alone, leave wikipedia now, buy a hut in the Andes and move in. That will help you to be left alone. I'm sure of it.   scope_creep Talk  19:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This article does not seem to merit existence - a closed restaurant which was open for about three years? Really? If this was relevant then I could add articles for every restaurant I helped open (all two of them), but I wouldn't because I think some restraint is in order. Never mind, I just checked and they both already have entries...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The Banner, I'll ask again, can you please explain how the sources you've removed from the article are inappropriate for Wikipedia? I've used The Oregonian, Portland Mercury, Eater Portland, Portland Monthly, the Food Network, and Willamette Week. Please be specific about which of these are problematic and why. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And I answer the same as many times before: Spammy and backing up irrelevant info. More poor references makes a subject not notable. The Banner  talk 21:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Banner Yes, you keep saying the same vague obstructionist rhetoric. Specifically which of the sources are problematic and why? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean that asking for proper sources is in your opinion "vague obstructionist rhetoric". You have nothing better on offer then this? No better sources or so? The Banner  talk 22:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not answering the question. Which of the sources are improper? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did rewrite the article, so you could have a pretty good idea what sources are not okay. This start to sound like WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. The Banner  talk 10:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not saying how any of the sources I had used were problematic. This is not constructive, so I'll move on to other things. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So you have no reliable, in-depth sources? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with AB here. The content is neutral, the sources are reliable, and TB is avoiding directly laying out their complaints by repeating vague accusations. I will look forward to restoring the content based on consensus, but I can wait to see if any other comments roll through. ɱ (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)