Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro

hounding
@Kingoflettuce, starting discussion here because I don't want us to end up with another AfD like Daily Dozen.

When one of an editor's creations is being scrutinized for not adhering to policy, and that editor is arguing that policy isn't what it is, it isn't hounding to go check some of their other similar articles. It's perfectly normal maintenance work. As EEng says, it might be better to simply tag for notability rather than take twenty articles to AfD, but it's not hounding to go check another editor's work.

I like AB and very much appreciate their work. But creating articles that don't adhere to policy and then arguing that they shouldn't have to adhere to policy or that policy doesn't mean what it says is a real problem. I have occasionally moved to article space before I'm positive I've shown notability; Zhang Dongju is an example. Someone who came in to add her name in Chinese started pulling up Chinese sources when they saw there was a notability tag. Valereee (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Checking" is reasonable, nominating a million articles specifically written by AB is not. KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 20:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you have reason to believe that all those articles are indeed non-notable. The Banner  talk 19:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Banner, such “reason to believe” should be investigated before wholesale nominations begin. While BEFORE is not required, not doing it is lazy, and when doing it in mass it’s not just lazy, it’s disruptive. It’s close enough to bullying, stalking, hounding etc to make neutral editors consider taking the non to ANI. — Jacona (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. Bringing the nominator to AN/I is the perfect way to smooth the road for substandard articles. And it will have a nasty chilling effect on the AfD-process because you can be punished for upholding the notability rules. The Banner  talk 08:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Banner, No one should be punished for upholding any rules. However, in this case we have seen allegations that a dispute at AfD has spilled over into other articles and other AfDs. If an editor makes revenge edits against another or takes masses of their articles to AfD for reasons other than honest questions about the notability of the subject, we need to chill that behavior. And deciding that an article is substandard and therefore nominating it for deletion without bothering to do any research into it's notability is disruptive. Most of the articles in this mass deletion should be deleted, but that doesn't mean we should just throw a host of articles on the fire without first researching each one on its own merits. — Jacona (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof that the nominator did not do his prior research?
 * To my opinion, most articles show no notability at all. The exception is a Michelin starred restaurant that was so bad that even the Michelin star became a passing mention in the article. That article needs serious work to be kept. The Banner  talk 12:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pardon my frivolous observation, but this must be the hundredth time I've seen you use the weird phrase "to my opinion"... KINGofLETTUCE 👑  🥬 13:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing The Banner is a native speaker of German or Russian. And possibly there's some crossover from "To my mind ...". EEng 13:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * EEng, I believe they are Dutch, but live in Ireland. They are a valued contributor, although their opinion and mine often differ at AfD. — Jacona (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dutch, Deutsch. EEng</b> 15:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As in different countries and different languages. And yes, Kingoflettuce, I have an opinion. I hope you do not mind. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So there's no misunderstanding, I was referring to the fact that the German idiom for English's "In my opinion" is Meiner Meinung nach (word for word: "My opinion to"), and that therefore Dutch is very likely to have a similar construction -- which (now that I look) it turns out it does: Naar mijn mening. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

nac
@Bruxton, pinged sort of here from 's talk. I saw this going back and forth, with support for the close from. I think that if there's an objection to an NAC, it's probably a good idea to let it go. I don't think the close was bad. It's just a contentious-enough AfD (and new enough) that with an objection, it would be good to have an experienced closer of contentious AfDs. Valereee (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. Important thing is we get to the right result and not waste editor time with this rolling complicated drama. I think DRV is the correct venue for those who think it is not correct. I am being constantly reverted by an editor who is quite involved in the discussion. I would be ok with any administrator backing out the close. Have people ever edit warred an AfD close before? Bruxton (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe or maybe not, but then there hardly even been so many thoughtless, counterproductive closes before (and that's saying a lot, this being AfD). It's true the discussion was a mess, but it was a mess that possibly could have moved toward a sensible way of moving forward (e.g. my proposal to close, tag {notability}, and then renominate in a few months -- mass nom or not). Instead, you've frozen the mess in aspic. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't provide diffs but I'm sure the answer is yes, there's been edit warring basically anywhere you can think of. :)
 * I get it, you're trying to shorten what's likely a longer route to the same destination. Like I said, it's not that I think the close is bad. It's that if someone objects, best to just let it play out. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And per EEng, I do actually think it's possible that with enough time that solution could gain momentum. Valereee (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I was being bold and saving valuable editor time. I also think the nominator could not withdraw the noms based on the p-block but it was a somewhat flawed AfD. I have been involved with enough AfDs and closes to see that this AfD was a goat. Finally an article can be sent to AfD an unlimited amount of times and I think the nominator knows the way forward now. Thanks for all you do here, including moderating this business. Bruxton (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bruxton, I'm sorry, not following, but I do want to. Can you clarify what you mean by Finally an article can be sent to AfD an unlimited amount of times and I think the nominator knows the way forward now.? Valereee (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just meant that an editor can nominate these articles and the close here does nothing to stop an editor from renomination. Then nominator stated in the AfD It if ends up as a procedural close, I will nominate them individually, 10 a month until they are done. Bruxton (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thing is, there was more going on than the question individual nominations and group nomination. Sooner or later almost all those articles will rise or fall together on the question of whether 20 two-sentence "reviews" in Thrillist and Eater add up to sigcov. I say "almost" because there's probably one or two articles on the list for which actual sigcov is waiting, out in the wild, to be added. So the actual way to "save valuable editor time" would be for the articles to be tagged for {notability}, for there be a wait of a few months, and then for a group (yes) nomination of those that still have just Thrillist and so on as their only sources, so that a single discussion can be held on the underlying question (again: of whether TRIVIA*20 = SIGCOV) instead of relitigating it fifteen times. That's where I was trying to take the discussion when you, Mr. Knowitall who didn't know the background, precipitously butted in to close it. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Relief
I thought there may be relief with a non-judgmental close and a way forward. Do you agree? I will have to leave it here. I hope you have a happy holiday season. No hard feelings. Bruxton (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, no hard feelings whatsoever. I am currently thinking about everything. Do you mind if I move this section to the AfD talk so as to avoid a split discussion? —Alalch E. 20:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am on four talk pages with this one, so maybe! I did not think it was controversial, and I also thought the nominator might agree with the close, but was p-blocked. I will take my trout if I deserve one and then give myself a break from editing. Bruxton (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Putting BADNAC and NACAFD aside, the close isn't good because it isn't a true procedural close. A procedural close says "procedural close" (like here), not "no consensus". Closing with "no consensus" taints unbundled AfDs because they should be conducted without any extant finding regarding consensus, as the Afd is still essentially going on, just in a modified format; if your close stands and someone now nominates all 14 articles separately, these will be new nominations, and there are bound to be comments how a discussion was closed just minutes/hours/days ago as "no consensus because there's really no consensus", and how "yet another AfD was started". It sets the wrong tone and induces bias toward another "no consensus". And the idea is to get to the point of consensus. Would you, say, remove the "no consensus" part? —Alalch E. 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * each article talk page carries the Old AfD banner with the explanation. I have changed the close as you have stated. Bruxton (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's a step in the right direction. —Alalch E. 20:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Ugh
. why? Valereee (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Garuda3, WTF? And, you then edit that close? Valereee (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we just shut this hot mess down and restart, article by article, or tag by tag, civilly and respectfully? ɱ  (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I sure as fuck can't, as I've been accused of involvement here. So there's that. Valereee (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * discussion above regarding the close language and Procedural close as a more accurate description. And I also have an ugh in me that I have to let out. Bruxton (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Valereee, this needs outside help. Added a topic here but will notify people at ANI if I have to. ɱ  (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , It seemed like an already undone clear BADNAC should not have been redone. I was in the middle of saying something along the lines that I am not opposed to a procedural close in the AfD (during the interval when it was open again), but was cut off. Immediately afterwards I pivoted to telling Bruxton that they may fix the language seeing how they seemed to want to perform a procedural close, which they appear to confirm. Things aren't critical now. I think we're mostly stable. I'd prefer no ANI —Alalch E. 20:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone sane prefers no ANI. :D Valereee (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was my peculiar brand of humor :) —Alalch E. 21:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I resent the implication that I'm not sane. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarity do you prefer ANI to resolving issues somewhere else? Valereee (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only when the moon is full. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)