Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluehour


 * 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 see no other closure than No Consensus as there is a fundamental disagreement on the adequacy of sources in the article and brought up in this discussion. There have been no new comments in 4 days so I don't think a relist will help resolve this. No penalty for renomination in the future but please wait a suitable period of time (that is, not today).

I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be Kept or Deleted but I do question simultaneously nominating many articles by the same article creator over a holiday period. I think this is only appropriate if there is possible policy-violating content which isn't the case here. It's fairly easy to nominate a lot of articles, separately or in a bundle, in a few hours but much more challenging for content creators to address problems in multiple discussions at once so please, in the future, if you have questions about an editor's work, space nominations out over time. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Bluehour

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Defunct business.  scope_creep Talk  08:50, 22 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) 11:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources consist of "bar opens", "come to singles bar", "bar closes". ROUTINE announcements, nothing showing there was any lasting impact from the business. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has been expanded significantly since you reviewed this version of the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A run-of-the-mill bar. BD2412  T 17:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can assure you the vast majority of restaurants in Portland or Oregon do not receive this much coverage. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , the article has been significantly expanded, would you reassess? ɱ  (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Another bar in what seems to be our massive overcoverage of Portland's hospitality industry (a regular AfD topic in 2022).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, "a regular AfD topic" right now because an editor is mass nominating seemingly indiscriminately (or at least with little or no research) and sometimes irrational arguments. Also, your vote does not actually contain any sort of source assessment. I would invite you to review my comment below re: The Oregonian, which is a major regional publication. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not see the hounding you've gone through involving multiple noms continuing even today, and there are plenty of sources now. Switching to keep, and advising the nom to knock it off, this isn't the way to endear yourself to the community. And I deeply and sincerely apologize for my blithe dismissal above, AB.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per GNG. The article now has 50+ sources, including reputable newspapers, books, magazine, food review sites, travel guides, etc. This represents some of the visible sources I could easily find via Google search, Google News and Google Books. A search for "Bluehour+Portland" at Lexis yields 563 results including 403 by The Oregonian, 26 by Portland Business Journal, 17 by The Columbian, and 11 by the Statesman Journal. I can't share Lexis URLs, so I would encourage editors to access the database to browse sources if possible. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quantity on Wikipedia in terms of references was never a thing, quality is. What is your best three references per WP:THREE that show the article is notable? These can be examined here to show whether it is worth keeping.   scope_creep Talk  03:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, except that I disagree that the fact that the business is defunct has bearing on it's own. About quantity: It may sometimes be a thing, for example when WP:BASIC is concerned, but quantity is decidedly not a thing when WP:NCORP is concerned. Based on what I've seen, the most extensive piece of coverage seems to be this, but it's essentially a press release about the restaurant opening (neatly packed in an interview-based profile feature format) by an outlet that obviously promotes local businesses. —Alalch E. 00:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on pg 102 here (currently Ref #13)? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What about this Oregonian article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The book one is good. We got one. The Oregonian article is routine local news about a restaurant closing, but it's a good source as a source, just not a good one for establishing notability. —Alalch E. 01:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. Shouldn't this help satisfy WP:AUD as a regional publication? Here's a detailed review by the same newspaper (which follows a shorter one published in 2011). This article is also interesting (not to mention written by a notable author). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AB, it really doesn't matter how important the Oregonian is to the PNW. Coverage in the NYT of a Manhattan restaurant is still local coverage. We want to see sigcov in the Chicago Tribune or Boston Globe or LA Times or Dayton Daily News. Valereee (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When there's this much Oregonian coverage + significant coverage in books + tons of additional coverage in local/state/national newspapers, guide books, magazines, detailed food reviews, commentary by notable authors and food critics, etc, then I'm satisfied notability criteria are met. We can just agree to disagree. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverage in the NYT of a Manhattan restaurant is still local coverage - Is it? The geographic coverage requirement is about the audience. When the "local" audience is actually a population that's larger than most countries in the world, the audience requirement would seem to be met. In the case of the PNW, it's the size of France with a population of Denmark and Switzerland combined, not even a single metro area like NYC. Is an article in Le Monde "local" coverage of something that happens in France? Is a write-up in El Periòdic d'Andorra sufficient because it covers the entire country of Andorra? Now, of course, The Oregonian isn't the official newspaper of record for the entire Pacific Northwest, and its circulation is a fraction of NYT or Le Monde, so I'm not saying NCORP is met (and not saying it isn't), but I see this argument from time to time that seems to interpret WP:AUD kind of arbitrarily... &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If a restaurant is more than locally-notable, it will get coverage in major dailies other than its hometown paper. It doesn't matter how important that hometown paper is in the region or even in the country because if the restaurant is notable, it'll also have coverage elsewhere. A review in the NYT of a Manhattan restaurant can certainly count toward showing notability, but you also have to have some evidence the restaurant is receiving attention elsewhere. If a Manhattan restaurant is actually notable, rather than simply being the subject of today's restaurant review, it's going to be mentioned in other places too. That's why the Oregonian isn't good enough all by itself. It's not that the Oregonian isn't important. It's that if a restaurant in Portland is truly notable, we won't need to rely only on the Oregonian, because that restaurant will be covered other places too. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd put the book as certainly partial support. It's as much about the chef as the restaurant, and it's still a pretty local/guidebooky source. There are like 70 restaurants mentioned in that book, not all of them are likely notable. The problem for me is that this article has so many poor sources that I can't find the good ones, and I am looking. For instance, I saw a NYT source...but, no, it's about an architect who is designing a restaurant in NYC, and there's a bare mention because he also designed Blue Hour. It's maddening to have to comb through 80 sources to see if there's actually anything here. I'm not even bothering to look at the Oregon sources because there are so many of them, I'm positive one of them is good enough to be the one local source we can use. It's so frustrating to see people trying to "fix" notability at an article by adding literally every mention they can find, when what's really needed is to point people at the three best sources. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 25 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)  18:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: this article flies by GNG with 78(!) references, including to numerous books, statewide newspapers, local news, and more, over the course of decades. For this restaurant to last 20 years is significant, as the industry standard is far lower: . The restaurant was clearly immensely important as well to the city, with prominent celebrities visiting, and being cited multiple times as the "place to see and be seen". I don't know what else you could desire from a restaurant article, this checks every box. ɱ  (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But which are the three sources that show notability? 78 sources that are either local or bare mentions aren't actually helpful in allowing other people to see the notability. Which three? Valereee (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All of them help prove notability. Your standards about "locality" are repulsive, no offense intended. I write about history pertaining to specific areas. Nobody in California is writing about Quebec events, nor are the Quebecois writing about notable Californians. That is why your personal notability standards are not codified in any policies and guidelines here, and you have to stop imposing them on other people. ɱ  (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. and I think Scope Creep needs to start doing huge source analysis because I do not trust his content. When this meets local, regional and even national coverage ( I mean the NYTimes covering your place is a sign you aren't just some local fly in the wall) is a major issue that you need to show Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Without judgement on the restaurant itself, I should point out that the NYTimes doesn't cover the restaurant, at least not in any meaningful way. They're both passing comments; one article is coverage of Brad Cloepfil's redesign of Eleven Madison Park (it mentions Bluehour as a previous project, but notability is not inherited), and the other (describing it as 'a bright star in the Portland food constellation') is a scene-setting comment in a paragraph about about a night where Todd Haynes had just sold a movie script and was thinking over the ramifications (while eating dinner with the reporter, I think, or maybe there was a conversation afterwards?). Calling that "coverage" feels extremely generous. –Mockingbus (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep rationale well spelled out by Bluerasberry and Ɱ. 80 references now, jeesh. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But which three are the ones that support notability? Valereee (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See my above comment. Stop this. ɱ  (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand how you feel, and I respect your line of reasoning above, but it doesn't have to be said that way, and it isn't right to talk like that. —Alalch E. 20:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was about to say "cease and desist", but people freak out whenever lingo is used from the legal world. But it needs to stop. We can't all just reply to every AfD voter ever about our own opinions of what notability standards should be. We have standards, via policies and guidelines, for a reason, and they do not specify locality and industry. ɱ  (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:GNG doesn't apply here, that is a false flag and FUD/fudge attempt and WP:42 is an essay and doesn't apply. It is also about 10 years out of date compared to NCORP. Per consensus only WP:NCORP applies for businesses. And AB feeling hard done by, is not a criteria either, as much as I sympathise and know how he is feeling. Everybody has went through this one or the other in the past, including myself. Here, only secondary, independent and reliable reference that are indepth per WP:SIRS applies here. This restaurant might actually be notable, but there has been no attempt to supply any real coverage that satisfies WP:NCORP. Doing a WP:CITEKILL on the article is not the way to do it, it really isnt. Per NCORP it doesn't count because they are all the same kind of low quality cruft that was the reason the policy was rewritten in 2018 in the first place, to discount this high quantity reference pile-on. Show me WP:THREE reference that prove the establisment is notable. I checked that ref above here, but couldn't see Tilt on it.   scope_creep Talk  11:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply at the Wildwood AfD on why NCORP should not apply to the Portland restaurant noms. Briefly, in my analysis, this was rejected as part of the failed 2018 NCORP RfC, and the closer must take it into account as far as it reflects community consensus on this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep To me these seem suitably in depth, reliable and independent -, and  when taken with the rest. Thincat (talk) 21:46, 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.