Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit House Saloon


 * 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. There is good-faith disagreement over whether the provided sources are enough, and a poor heat:light ratio, which makes relisting a poor option. I suggest resolving scope issues before returning to AfD if needed. This isn't the place for misconduct allegations from anybody; take those to the noticeboards, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Bit House Saloon

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Defunct restuarant and bar. Non-notable. Supposed bar of the year, but couldn't survive. References are ultra local trade news, PR sites and professional review sites like Conde Nast. Fails WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  19:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment on source assessment. Multiple of these would qualify as the one local or industry-niche coverage among three sources, but we need two that are outside the local area/outside industry-niche publications. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Welp, saw this coming. Seems a couple editors don't like that there are so many articles about restaurants in Portland, which is fine but doesn't mean this restaurant is non-notable. Entry has multiple independent reliable sources specifically focused on the topic. Nominator fails to flag which sources are "PR sites" or explain why "professional review sites" are problematic. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Borderline. I raised, with the AfD nominator, the issue of the number of Wikipedia articles on restaurants listed in Portland. (There are more listed for this city than for New York and London). But, I didn't refer to this article specifically.


 * As there's no separate guideline for restaurants/other eateries/bars I guess they're included under commercial organisations, so WP:ORG and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS apply. What concerns me here, and in similar articles, is the reliability and independence of the references used. Half the sources here are written by the same author, Alex Frane. These all look promotional and unreliable. Take source 10, the list of "16 essential bars". How many bars did the writer consider 20, 25, 50, 100? Not revealed. What selection criteria was chosen for the lists i.e. what does "best" or "essential" actually mean. Not stated. I put it that the bar's inclusion in lists of this type has little meaning. We simply don't know how the listings were compiled and the factors that led to the business being mentioned or not. I don't see anything by this writer that helps establish notability.


 * I assume The Oregonian to be a reliable, independent source and make the point that its print coverage is wider than Portland itself.


 * I have reservations about the other sources and nature of the writing. Eater Portland has many "best of/essential" list type articles. The Eater Portland "Bar of the Year" headline, on the surface, seems to confer notability, but further reading reveals the award was restricted to establishments opened in the past year or so. How many were in the running/seriously considered? Also, I'm not sure how reliable and independent that website is.


 * One of the Williamette Week references is about a subsequent business. However, the other by Matthew Korfhage, who also writes for USA Today on food related articles, does lend credibility and independence.


 * So, do 2 credible sourced references amount to widespread coverage and fulfil notability for this as a stand alone article? Borderline. It would help if other reliable published sources were added to the article, preferably from outside of Portland. Rupples (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a defunct organisation with no historical or enclycopeadic value. There is no analysis that provides any deep insights. It is a listicle article similar to what you find in Fodor's or the Michelin guide, except it is defunct organisation. What is the point of it?   scope_creep Talk  17:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding sources to an article like this, is similar to trying to pump up a dead whale in the hope that it will float and acts like a whale, even though it is dead. There is no value in the article as a historical or enclyclopeadic entity. Its doesn't have any kind of analysis to prove that it has worth to history. Its a defunct article that fails WP:NCORP, particularly WP:SIRS. Even if was a live organisation, it would still fail WP:SIRS. The fake reviews, that are created by content writers, a strata of internet writers, below technical writers in the scheme of things, that creates these type of shallow "eat here "reviews, to give the place a veneer of respectability and give the idea that it is somehow a good place to eat. If folk don't see the food, they don't go, so its effectively a promotional device to sell the organisation. It is the lowest level of brochure advertising. It is quick and dirty, because within a few weeks a new restaurant will open that will attract folk, so they must put as promo as possible into the venue, so its done as quickly as possible and then with a couple of weeks it is something else. The article on this defunct organisation is a WP:PROMO brochure advertisement that fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS.    scope_creep Talk  23:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to WP:NOTPROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you identify the promotional content here or on the article's talk page, please? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello . The first example is "a swanky cocktail lounge, a casual tap house, and a happy-hour destination". This example is a quote, but an NPOV encyclopedia article largely consist of subjective quotes from foodie blogs, local travel guides, etc. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're mischaracterizing source quality and you don't like that I've used a direct quote. Got it... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree not notable and due to WP:NOTPROMOTION. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you identify the promotional content here or on the article's talk page, please? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment You don't really need to show an source analysis as its a lot of work. All you need to do, is show WP:THREE secondary references that show the article is notable. Puting a table up, per the doughnut Afd and and then trying to cast doubt on it, is not good way of doing things, particularly since the way done there, exceeedingly poor form. WP:THREE is the standard way of doing it. Three decent refs would close to Afd in a New York minute. But since it a defunct restuarant, there is nothing you grasp.    scope_creep Talk  15:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course, I'm in the wrong once again. You're welcome to fill in the source assessment table, or not. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is dead company and its non-notable. It has no historical or encyclopedic value. It has nothing of cultural value as something that needs to remembered by humanity. It hasn't advanced humanity by existing. It hasn't got a place in the cultural fabric of the city, as with most restaurants. Once it closes, its completely forgotten, unless somekind of mark has been made that is important, for example Café Guerbois.     scope_creep Talk  20:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * *Delete - While the article was written and notated well, I fail to see how a bar that was only in operation for 5 years and is closed now, would hold enough value to stay published in a global encyclopedia. If it was still open, I would consider its potential to have ongoing value but, since the restaurant was only open for just over 5 years and is closed now, I would probably recommend a delete. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to help determine if the transition from Bit House Saloon to Bit House Collective was a rebrand, or an end and start of completely different companies. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Bit House Collective is currently in operation and there are additional sources to add if this entry is to cover Bit House Collective as well. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would consider changing my vote to merge but, there is no other page. For the page to be saved, I would consider adding a bit about the Bit House Collective, then redirect the page to a Bit House Collective page where it would hold information about both versions of this venue. From what I saw, I am sure their drag shows are garnering them some media attention that could be used to notate updated information on the new version.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ScienceAdvisor Seems you are in agreement with User:Grand'mere Eugene at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon about including details for both Bit House Saloon and Bit House Collective. Bit House Collective seems to have been replaced by Swan Dive, but there's more sources to add about both Bit House Saloon and now especially Bit House Collective (which is only mentioned in passing at this time). More sources have been shared on the article's talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the bar has changed hands a 3rd time and was rebranded again, the article should be deleted. There is nothing I see to establish exceptional notability to have a wikipedia page after 2 rebrands and changes in ownership. If anything, the building might be notable enough and, information about each establishment could be listed under a page for a page created for a page created for the building that houses these establishments. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just so I understand what you're saying, you've assessed available coverage of Bit House Collective, too? I think there's quite a bit more content to add about the Collective. I'll continue trying to expand the entry but in the meantime I've noted the rebrand in the introduction and created a subsection (with an 'expansion needed' tag) to give space to Bit House Collective. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Request: Can editors please help determine if the 2021 rebrand means the business continued to operate by a different name, or if Bit House Saloon closed and should be considered defunct and totally separate from Bit House Collective? I'll try to revisit recent sources as time allows but I'm kind of drowning in article rescues at the moment, not to mention the other things I have to do "in real life". Please see ongoing Talk page discussion. If this article should cover Bit House Collective as well, then there are even more sources to add and "defunct" category should be removed. Shame this needs to be rushed because of AfD. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep If only because the nominator is clearly targeting AB's work and therefore engaged in WP:WIKIHOUNDING. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 18:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any content related arguments or only nominator related remarks. The Banner  talk 19:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The content-related stuff is a moot point given that this AfD was evidently made in bad faith, i.e. to specifically target the work of one editor. Just like how a sockpuppet's nomination would be instantly thrown out, even if legitimate points were raised. It's just common sense: let's stop the wikihounding first, then come back to business (but perhaps after a few weeks at least, for all the dust to settle). KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 19:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So you have nothing to say about the content, you just go after the nominator. The Banner  talk 20:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what "moot point" means? Begone with all this tedious posturing... KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 00:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, as in the way you use it here it means that you do not have any content related arguments but prefer to attack the nominator based on an incorrect idea. The Banner  talk 08:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you need to prove bad faith and should not state it lightly, as accusations are damaging, and a confrontation or inhibition of an editor's work. From the policy, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." It appears you are stating @The Banner is targeting a user, but they also can look at an editor's history to correct related problems such as notability over multiple pages (as per the policy). I have not looked into the users in question history, but your basis for the keep has not provided any evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. Banner is cool, even though he defends the not so cool guy a bit too zealously, when more troubling edit patterns are coming to the light. There's the evidence for you! KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 00:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What I stated was that KingofLettuce was unfairly targetting Scope_Creep for sticking to the notability rules. The Banner  talk 08:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Banner, What are the notability rules? I'm aware of the notability guidelines (WP:N), including WP:NPOSSIBLE, which states that "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Is that one of the rules to which you refer? — Jacona (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meet GNG, even before using many recently found sources in the article. Sources exist demonstrating the notability of the subject, per WP:CONTN. It has three sources already, with plenty more listed on the article's talk page to improve the article. The "subject is defunct" argument puzzles me, since WP keeps articles on defunct restaurants-- we even have Category:Defunct restaurants in the United States populated by sub categories of defunct restaurants by region. But then I mostly edit school articles and biographies. Since we don't delete articles about defunct schools or dead people, I'm not understanding that argument, easily defeated by Reductio ad absurdum.   — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The nominator seriously believes that "99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable and when they close, folk forget about them. They are transitory."  KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 00:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh. Silly me, I was expecting a reasoned argument... — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Grand'mere Eugene, which three sources do you believe rise to the level of supporting a claim of notability? That is, significant coverage in an independent reliable source, two of which are not local or industry niche publications? Valereee (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NCORP, WP:AUD says, at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. I disagree with your advocacy of two, which seems to me an arbitrary inflation over the AUD guideline.
 * As I wrote here on 2:14 pm, 19 December 2022, I consider The Oregonian to be a regional source, and we have two sources there, but I also I find the Playboy piece has enough text to meet the guideline for significant coverage. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep ɱ  (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Lets examine the references, since this defunct restaurant article has been updated since the Afd was posted. Looking at the first block to see if there is anything that prove that it has lasting cultural appeal


 * Ref 1 Non-significant profile review. Fails WP:SIRS. Reviewed in 2015.
 * Ref 2 Dead link
 * Ref 3 Predatory publisher.
 * Ref 4 Would have failed WP:ORGIND at the time. Reviewed in 2017.
 * Ref 5 Passing mention. Article from August 2016.
 * Ref 6 Passing mention. Chef worked there. Article from Nov 2022
 * Ref 7 Profile review. Would have failed WP:SIRS. Article from 2017.
 * Ref 8 Head-chef at bit house. From March 2021
 * Ref 9 Full review from 2015
 * Ref 10 New businesses in portland. Profiles would have failed WP:SIRS at the time. Article from October 2015

None of these refs prove the business is currently notable. A WP:BEFORE, Gbook search, Google CSE and archive search doesn't find a single reference that proves the restuarant has a lasting cultural impact. It was a local restaurant that existed for six years and has been completely forgotten. It dead defunct business and there is nothing published that can prove it is currently notable.  scope_creep Talk  14:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Currently notable" is not a thing. Notability either exists, or it doesn't. ɱ  (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I am sincerely interested in your stance that the article fails notability guidelines because it lacks "reference that proves the restaurant has a lasting cultural impact"'. I respect your expertise, and I need to know what part of GNG or NCORP explains that criterion. In the meantime, following WP:THREE, here is my offering of sources that establish notability, in a more conventional sense as I understand notability guidelines:
 * Bit House Saloon, Portland, one of 50 bars nationally nominated by Playboy as 2015 Best New Bars
 * Portland's 2015 Bar of the Year: Bit House Saloon The Oregonian review
 * Bit House Saloon], Willamette Week review
 * — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I imagine you're not familiar with the Articles for deletion/Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (2nd nomination) fiasco? Scope creep would spit on the sources you've offered KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeegads, I think I need a drink— or maybe a donut. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also asked Scope creep to respond on the article's talk page re: ownership. Thank you, Grand'mere Eugene, for taking time to find helpful sources and improve the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the Bit House Collective section further. We're up to 40 sources now, and I've identified another dozen or so to potentially add. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 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)  18:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not know why you think it's worth it to just keep adding source after source after source after source after source that doesn't provide those three. I want to help you, and you are literally making it impossible for me to do so because now I have to go through FIFTY SOURCES to see if any of them support notability.
 * AB, I feel like you think more sources = proves it's notable. That is not the case. You've got 50+ sources here, and no indication of which are
 * 1) sigcov
 * 2) independent RS
 * 3) not local

Please just tell me: which three of these sources best represents sigcov in independent RS that aren't local/industry niche? Which three? Valereee (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Point to the policy that specifies about locality and industry, please. ɱ  (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't actually need stated policy. We just need consensus. And what we've generally seen for businesses is that we need to see coverage outside of their local area and outside of niche publications. That's what demonstrates notability. Valereee (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice! A wordy excuse. Please point to policies and guidelines in your deletion discussions, especially when countering votes. I don't accept your logic about this for a second. ɱ  (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.