Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sullivan's Gulch Bar & Grill


 * 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 delete and redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sullivan's Gulch Bar & Grill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't see how this meets our notability guidelines for companies. It gets two hits on GNews, one because of a robbery there; and no verifiable hits on GBooks. Sources in the page appear to be of strictly local relevance and significance only. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just redirect to Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon. I'd do this myself, but can't with an ongoing AFD. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I change my vote. Just redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, which mentions the business. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Even nominator seems open to redirecting. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no objection to redirection. I'd have saved time if I'd discussed with the article creator before creating this nomination. Such is life. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Curious if you have any thoughts on redirecting to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon instead of the neighborhood category? I've raised the question below, and changed my vote above. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect per above discussion and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. I have just noticed the same editor has been adding numerous businesses in the Portland, Oregon area onto Wiki. It's possible they is misunderstanding that it's not intended to be used like a local travel wiki as this business and man of articles they has created lack the elements of general notability for businesses Graywalls (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - agree with User:Graywalls' assessment. Deb (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm almost afraid to ask, but other editors below have changed their delete votes to redirect, and I'm curious if you oppose redirecting instead of deleting? Trying to get a consensus here. Thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It amounts to the same thing as far as I'm concerned. I normally actively oppose redirecting only when there is nothing to redirect to or when there seems a real danger of the article being recreated surreptitiously. Deb (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Are you opposed to redirecting to Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon, which the nominator has supported? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon where the bar's name can be added along with the sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The one issue I see with this. It's not an appropriate use of neighborhood page to make it a place to add subsection for every single business editors feel like adding that couldn't muster the requirements for stand-alone article. Do you get the impression that this article should be added into the neighborhood page? Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , No one suggested a standalone subsection or requested mention of every single business. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But the real concern is creating an expectation that anyone can crank out a bunch of junk articles about every run of the mill organizations, events, shops, taverns and stores they are interested in creating for whatever reason expectant of weaseling at least a mention into another article if the article can't stand on its own. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete redirect Another run-of-the-mill venue with local coverage that does not establish notability. A redirect is fine. Reywas92Talk 19:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Then are you comfortable changing your vote to redirect? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - after rethink, and apologizing to everyone whose patience I have tried. User:Graywalls makes an excellent pont above.  As I wrote in by my first comment, this neighborhood bar fails WP:SIGCOV, and neighborhood articles should NOT be a DIRECTORY of all businesses in the neighborhood. Notable businesses can be linked to neighborhood article. Only notable businesses.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The redirect !votes above don't seem to advocate a merge. Do you think there's any harm in redirecting if no content is merged into the neighborhood article? Advocating for deletion on the basis that the neighborhood article will become a business directory seems like a straw man argument to me. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, I agree with you that only notable businesses should be mentioned in the neighborhood article. I personally am leaning towards redirecting but not linking to the redirect in merging any content into the neighborhood article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously we wouldn't link the redirect in the target article, per WP:SELFRED. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CON, WP:CANVASS. Let's have an understanding of vote vs consensus. Votes shouldn't count for much. It doesn't work like an election and it's a critical difference. Yeses and nos without articulation don't carry significant weight and votes are exceptionally cheap especially in these days and ages where people can edit from mobile device and appear like unique users. For example, patrons and friends of a John's Bar & Grill in a small township can have its patrons vote yes and easily gather up 5 or 6 yeses on notability. Unless they each makeup worthy argument, they should not really cocunt.Graywalls (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are you replying to here? I don't see the connection between this post and the above discussion. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ,to whomever reading to avoid foreseeable confusion between consensus vs vote. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok? I think most experienced users already understand this distinction. Also, I lol'd at "Lord Blongbroke". Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it your belief that only experienced users can participate in AfD discussion? I also don't share your assumption. If it was true, we wouldn't have someone like Another Believer supporting "keep" argument at a different discussion making appeal to something like this appeal to "two people said yes to notability" that did not have any explanation. Graywalls (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not we list businesses in neighborhood articles turs out to be an interesting question. Switching coasts, I note that 1.) Porter Square includes a long list of non-blue-linked local businesses; 2.) Harvard Square, Davis Square, Ball Square include both bluelinked and completely unsourced, non-bluelinked businesses in the text. 3.)  Porter Square mention businesses in the text but they seem to be all bluelinked.  and does not have lists. 4.) Kendall Square has a long list of bluelinked businesses and mentions other bluelinked businesses in the text. 5.) Powder House Square mentions no business by name.  Do we have any sort of policy that applies here?   I would have thought that to be mentioned by name in an article, a business ought to be either A.) bluelinked, and appropriately added to the neighborhood where it is located.  Or B.) sourced.  I am astounded by how many neighborhood articles in the couple of east coast youth-mecca towns that I spot-checked (because similarity to Portland,) are stuffed with completely unsourced local businesses.  Opinion anyone?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is interesting. I don't have a general opinion on whether non-bluelinked organizations should be mentioned in neighborhood articles—I can imagine some cases where a business is not notable enough for its own article, but could be mentioned in its neighborhood article if reliable sources mention a connection. Unsourced, non-bluelinked businesses should probably be removed. I had a related debate at Talk:Sunderland, Portland, Oregon about whether the Dignity Village homeless encampment should be mentioned in Sunderland, Portland, Oregon. I argued for inclusion there because Dignity Village is notable by our standards, even though sources don't seem to make a connection between it and the Sunderland neighborhood. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment/Question: What about just redirecting to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon instead of the neighborhood article? The business is already mentioned there appropriately. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? I should also note, Joq's Tavern and Joq's redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is an excellent option that makes the whole "neighborhood articles aren't business directories" rationale for deletion moot. I personally see no downsides to this redirect. I'm also fine with redirecting to Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon as you originally proposed. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * /the creator, those shouldn't exist either, IMO but you're by all means welcome to AfD those too. Even within the article itself, the quotation "This Northeast neighborhood joint is just your average blue-collar tavern. Nothing special. And people wouldn't want it any other way." does not assert notability. It's just a damn run of the mill bar and notability even within the local sphere is pale. I think your argument is moot, because Per essay what about article x?Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinking this through, I DO NOT support a redirect of this non-notable bar to neighborhood page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , But what about the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks as though all of the establishments in the "Nightlife" section of the page are bluelinked, except Sullivans. Which is sourced, but not bluelinked. I'm frankly not sure it belongs on the page.  Portland seems to have quite a lot of nightspots that pass WP:GNG.  I don't see the argument for singling our this particular non-notable bar and adding it to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , But if there are multiple sources describing Joq's/Sullivan's relationship to Portland's gay community, what's wrong with adding mention of the establishment to the appropriate section? I suppose whether or not to include mention of Joq's/Sullivan's within the "LGBT culture of Portland, Oregon" article is a separate matter. For now, we're just deciding whether the Sullivan's page should be deleted or redirected. Given mention in the current LGBT culture article, I suggest redirecting so easier editor navigation and because redirects are cheap. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The happiest outcome would be to find enough WP:SIGCOV to keep it as a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Right, but I'm not sure that's possible at this time, hence adding mention in the LGBT culture article. I've not spent time combing through The Oregonian archives to compile a list of sources and support keeping the standalone article. I believe more research is needed, hence my vote to simply redirect for now, rather than deleting the entire article's history. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading correctly, you're currently voting to delete the article. Do you still believe the page should be deleted, or have I overlooked where you may have changed your vote? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do a lot of AfD and I usually vote to delete. I work hard to keep and source articles I find at AfD, and often succeed.  But the truth is that the majority of articles that get to AfD get here because the sources just aren't there to pass our notability standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand, but does that mean you still want to delete this page even though the redirect serves a purpose by directing readers to the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. But let add that I, too, have created articles that I thought were notable, only to find that I was mistaken, and the sources just weren't there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure I understand why you'd want to delete a page when the redirect would serve a purpose, but that's ok. Thanks again! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While Another Believer does so with civility, his approach comes across as tenaciously pressuring and manipulating to get his way. Remember, emphasize on the policy based argument and tap into previous noticeboard discussions if needed. Graywalls (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , What? I'm not pressuring anyone to vote any particular way. Look, my life will go on just fine if this page is deleted. I'm posing a fair question, which is why would we delete a page when the redirect serves a purpose? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already expressed my reason for this earlier on in this AfD, therefore I will refer you back to that. Graywalls (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (I wasn't asking you again, I just just replying to your comment accusing me of being manipulative.) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. The subject is appropriately referenced in the LGBT Culture in PDX article. Since it's covered there, a redirect seems the best option. --Kbabej (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2019 (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.