Skyline Restaurant: -- wooden superman 13:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  -- wooden superman 13:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with the nominator. Although the reviews used as sources appear to be independent and reliable per WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS , they vary in depth and significance and are all local publications. The article itself just says its a restaurant that has received "generally" positive reviews. None of this suggests anything other than WP:MILL , which does not establish a level of notability that would justify a standalone article. Dfadden ( talk ) 13:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Oregonian is not merely local media; it is the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, and the de facto newspaper of record for the state of Oregon. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 14:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It hardly establishes notability in this case though does it?  The one reference in this article from this newspaper is an article listing some of the best places to get a milkshake in the state!!!  Not exactly the in depth coverage that WP:SIRS calls for is it? -- wooden superman 14:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you try searching for other Oregonian coverage before nominating?  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm a neutral party looking at this article in isolation and I dont live in the USA (im a burger fan which led me here).  At the time of my vote, there was no under construction tag.  I looked at the article's edit history and saw little major expansion work had been done since October 2021 before the AfD nomination.  Granted the Oregonian may have broad circulation, but the articles don't really cover why this place is significant other than having decent milkshakes.  I did do a cursory google search before voting and I'm not convinced by the expanded article (break-ins and power outages can affect any business!) that it is not a "run of the mill" diner yet.  My vote remains delete.  But I agree with other comments that perhaps this should be developed in a draft space to avoid premature AfDs?  Dfadden ( talk ) 20:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I have added an "under construction" tag and will be expanding this article.  This is a continuation of a mass nomination of Portland restaurant entries, and I doubt a proper source assessment has been completed before jumping to AfD.  Nominator may disagree and that's fine, my point is this article is a work in progress and I hope others will complete a thorough review of sourcing before voting on a stub.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you considered maybe creating these in draft space first then waiting for others' opinions on whether they meet notability, rather than creating as a stub in mainspace?   Whilst I commend the quality and commitment in your work, it seems like you have created a great number of articles that are just WP:Run-of-the-mill .   Not every restaurant in Portland is notable.  -- wooden superman 15:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one thinks every restaurant in Portland is notable. This has been discussed so much lately because of mass nominating of Portland restaurant articles. I'm not interested in commenting further. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , agreeing with the nominator.  I cannot find anything that deems this restaurant notable, even if the article was well-developed.  The Oregonian 's list does not include WP:SIGCOV of the restaurant, too. Tirishan ( talk ) 16:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). This is a continuation of Portland restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily. Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the city's restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local, regional, and national publications providing in-depth coverage of the business, which is many decades old. I've asked the nominator to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. Based on sufficient coverage, this entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Oregon . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Nom is a stretch of the interpretation of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE , as is just a few local [reviews] .  I don't disagree that we don't want to get too far afield, but this doesn't meet the threshold for deletion; redirection, maybe, but not deletion.  Does the article need work?  Sure.  But that's a reason to work on the article's shortcomings, not a reason to delete. Butler Blog ( talk ) 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What, exactly, is actually notable about this diner? What makes it stand out?  What makes it significant?  There is nothing about this diner that is not WP:Run-of-the-mill .  Take a look at some of the inane padding added to this article: Skyline has a sign advertising the "Best Burger in Portland" ; Classic rock is played outside, and orders are announced over a speaker. Honestly! -- wooden superman 13:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The burden of proof is not on me to prove to you that it should be kept.  Quite the opposite - it's on you as the nominator to show that it doesn't meet GNG and your nomination simply does not meet the threshold.  It's based on opinion.   And WP:Run-of-the-mill is an opinion essay - it is not an actual policy or guideline - it supports nothing in a deletion discussion.  Butler Blog ( talk ) 19:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment In fairness, the nominator has already sighted WP:SIGCOV , and pointed out that much of the expansion could be considered puffery .  Notability requires two conditions to be met  - 1. Meeting GNG guidelines and  2. Not excluded under WP:NOT .  It's also worth reminding some people who have commented on this AfD that Wikipedia is not a Battleground and votes should be backed by arguments around policy.  WP:WHATISTOBEDONE suggests editors who have doubts about whether an article meets notability criteria may consider an AfD.  Evidence wins arguments, rather than accusations of grudges or personal bias.  As to notability criteria, I tend to agree that this fails WP:NOT which is not an exhaustive list, but should be taken in the spirit of the first of the 5 pillars .  Much of the content here is extended quotes taken from the many reviews used as sources and even then, is trivial and doesn't show notability - eg "Classic rock is played outside, and orders are announced over a speaker. According to Martin Cizmar of Willamette Week, the restaurant's soundtrack has "lots of Beach Boys and the pre-Tiffany version of 'I Think We're Alone Now'. " Also, that the business has a sign advertising the best burgers and has been impacted by a power outage that affected the whole city. How is this encyclopedic content? Other inclusions like "The restaurant is open seven days a week, except for Thanksgiving and Christmas" could be excluded per WP:NOTGUIDE and the whole article arguably borders on WP:PROMO by virtue of the content mostly being direct quotes from reviews that don't use a neutral POV. I think the article was created in good faith as the the creator believes the diner has cultural value. As an argument for notability, this position may be strengthened if there are some reliable sources or discussion relating to its heritage, impact or appearances in popular culture etc. For example, when i read The Roxy (Portland, Oregon) , it's clear that it had some broader impact on the LGBT culture in Portland. This article on the other hand is just a collection of commentary on the food and atmosphere. Dfadden ( talk ) 00:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will beg your pardon in advance if this comes across as harsh, but if your comment ( ...reminding some people who have commented on this AfD that Wikipedia is not a Battleground and votes should be backed by arguments around policy ) was in any way directed at me, then you'd better be prepared to back up your claims of WP:BATTLEGROUND . Such a comment could be easily construed to be confrontational itself.  (If it's directed at others or in general, then your comment belongs in the general discussion, and not threaded in this one.)  But more importantly, consensus is not a vote .  Not only is consensus not a voting process, there is no requirement that consensus be the majority opinion. If you don't understand that, then please familiarize yourself with WP:CON before commenting further. Butler Blog ( talk ) 17:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The comment regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND was not directed at you personally, and I take on board your feedback about not including in the threaded comment, so I apolgise if it came across as such and will strike it from this section. As to WP:CON , consensus is not a vote and does does not require unanimity, However, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines . " I have raised legitimate concerns (IMHO) about issues surrounding particular policies and guidelines as did the nominator. I feel that some of the votes in favour of keeping the article have not considered these points. I'm happy to let the admins decide if there is consensus here and will not oppose their decision. I just want to ensure I have clearly stated my case and advocated my position as part of the process. Dfadden ( talk ) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is just sad some people spend all their time nominating and attacking quality articles by Another Believer (instead of trying to improve the wiki in their own field of knowledge). Coldbolt ( talk ) 19:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was not aware of the previous history here, but it seems that maybe there are quite a few people who have independently seen a problem with the great number of trivial articles like these started by this editor. -- wooden superman 13:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , obvious keep, per sourced material. As for the Portland travel guide accusation, since all of these articles are adequate, the actual sentiment could be that Portland is lucky that Another Believer focuses on it (just one of many notable topics that AB brings to Wikipedia). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 00:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It might be sourced material, but the material does not establish notability.  None of it is significant.  Or even interesting except to maybe people who might want to dine there. -- wooden superman 13:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Differ, I beg to" to quote Mr. Yoda (and to abide by James Beard). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I strongly disagree. Sounds like a personal opinion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : I see no reason for deletion. ? Silence doc ¿ 23:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Great work, well written, and sourced. TheLostBoy ( talk ) 19:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keeps, but they seem shy about presenting the core refs that make it a keep... try a re-list. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aszx5000 ( talk ) 20:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article which was nominated for deletion was very different than the current article, but even with the WP:HEY and all the new citations, I'm not sure how WP:NORG is met. It's just a local restaurant that's only received routine local mentions. Before someone responds, the only articles currently in the citation that covers only the restaurant are a local food review (Portland Mercury) and some local news articles about a break-in. The remaining articles are more local food reviews with other restaurants lumped in, general restaurant news, listicles, directories of restaurants, et cetera... If these count for notability, then every restaurant in every city with a food editor is notable. I also think WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE actually still applies here the way the article's been written. SportingFlyer T · C 22:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article covers a culturally significant restaurant in a highly populated downtown area. It is well written, well sourced, and highly polished. It isn't competing for an article title or resulting in the creation of a disambiguation page. I see absolutely no reason to even consider deleting this article, it certainly isn't hurting anything. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 11:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We need to have the three references that you believe give it WP:GNG - at the moment, despite the length of this AfD, we have not been presented with these references? Remember, AfD is not a vote. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 15:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:ATA . Aszx5000 ( talk ) 15:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The way I see it, this is an extremely obvious case where WP:NORULES should be implemented. This article is extremely high quality, well written, well sourced, and covers a topic of clear local cultural significance. This doesn't fall under WP:MILL because it's engrained into the history of an extremely notable urban area. I don't understand why you're so hellbent on deleting it. Remember, the goal of this process is to allow this encyclopedia to include relevant information and sift out things that are irrelevant. Deleting a GA-quality article covering a significant restaurant in a major metro area because the restaurant hasn't been covered by national news isn't bringing us any closer to achieving that. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 00:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The argument you make can be used by any fan to create any page they want about their favorite topic.  That is why on Wikipedia we need some level of proof of notability for an article.  I have not !voted in this AfD, but am trying to get the "keeps" to show the refs that meet this criteria.  Articles that can't do this, even if they survive an AfD, keep coming back. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 07:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it's astounding that some people think articles should go just based on the types of sources restaurants get. This article is neutral, factual, and incredibly long, with great images, good prose, and citation work. This should be a GA or FA, not up for deletion. ɱ (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And yet those of us wanting to delete it are still waiting on the WP:THREE sources which actually show that this restaurant is notable. As I've written above, if this restaurant is notable, based on the sourcing currently in the article, every restaurant in every city with a food newspaper beat will be notable. SportingFlyer T · C 11:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] THREE is just some dude's essay. This passes OUR NOTABILITY GUIDELINE by a longshot. Yes, if newspapers substantially cover a food business, we should too. Duh. ɱ (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a possible disconnect with NAUTHOR or NALBUM, where book or album reviews by industry critics can give notability (and I sometimes see in AfD borderline cases still sailing through with thin reviews in very niche RS).  I guess if we had WP:NRESTAURANT , there might be a similar criteria that if it was reviewed by a critic, then that would go to notability?  Maybe that is the disconnect that being felt here? My 2cents. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 14:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason there's delete !votes here is because this article clearly fails WP:NCORP (and WP:GNG , and the guidance at WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS .) Not a single keep !voter has shown any sources that either pass NCORP or RESTAURANTREVIEWS. All I'm asking is to see WP:THREE of those - if they existed, this wouldn't be a contentious AfD. SportingFlyer T · C 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SportingFlyer : again that's an essay, and I see that this does pass GNG and RESTAURANTREVIEWS. Which sources do you think don't qualify there? And NCORP (which the review section is part of) should only be one consideration for a foodservice operation. Food and drink culture is a culture , with history, traditions, architecture, design, technique, neighborhood or city associations, etc. It's not just some random office business, there are many other cultural factors to apply here. ɱ (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem I have is that the cultural importance isnt clearly conveyed through the article. Sure, there are a few detailed and subjective reviews, but nothing that distinguishes this diner as being notable over any other. The claim of best burger is disputed. There is no evidence that the building itself is protecred by a heritage listing or something that would convey its architectural significance. Perhaps if this were a culture wiki dedicated to restaurants and food, this could be a featured article, but wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and a collection of reviews, changes in ownership, historic menu items,  trading hours and being closed once due to a statewide power outage are not encyclopedic content. I ask you to have a look at The Roxy (Portland, Oregon) . I believe this also contains a lot of similarly unencyclopedic content, but it is  clear that it had cultural significance beyond just its menu and existence. Because of that, I'd say it's issues are worth fixing. I just don't see that with this Skyline and nobody has been able point out particular sources that provide in depth coverage of its cultural impact. Dfadden ( talk ) 21:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't cherry-pick your notability standards. Restaurants are restaurants are restaurants, and the guidelines need to apply to them equally. We can't just only blindly rely on corporation standards for cultural cornerstones including restaurants, cafes, and cocktail bars. ɱ (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its not about cherry picking notability standards at all. Its about clearly articulating what makes this restaurant notable in the first place. WP:EXISTS (an essay) implies that the existence of a person or thing does not prove its notability. There doesnt appear to be any defined standard or guideline on what makes a restaurant notable, but if a member of WP:Food and Drink can point one out, I'd be happy to consider it. To say "a restaurant is a restaurant" would mean either all restaurants are notable or no restaurants are notable and I certainly don't think either interpretation is true. Dfadden ( talk ) 01:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't quite what I was saying, any part of this reply here. ɱ (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologise if i have misunderstood you. If you are saying is that there is a cultural dimension to restaurants that is ignored by the blanket argument of WP:NCORP , I actually agree with you! However, as user:Aszx5000 points out, there is no tangible guideline on notability for restaurants like there are for other cultural works such as WP:NALBUM . I think identifying WP:THREE sources that most clearly demonstrate notability derived from this cultural value would go a long way towards achieving consensus. Dfadden ( talk ) 03:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you know why editors are so averse to this 'three' bs? I'd be willing to stake having a closer find nobody willing to list the three best sources over the alternative. If I list three sources, especially in most of Another Believer's AfDs, the hounds then come out to rip those to shreds. Any source can be pulled apart for something or another. Even the best newspapers are constantly targeted as 'biased'. I'm not setting the keep vote up for failure. All of the sources contribute to notability together. ɱ (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In many of these instances, the delete voters set up their own 'source reviews' which are heavily biased themselves, and rife with errors and misleading or false statements. I don't trust source analysis in an AfD anymore. People can individually vote after taking their own look. ɱ (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have yet to find a single GNG-qualifying source out of the 43 sources currently in the article. Every source is flawed in some way. [10] is the closest I've found so far but again it's just a local restaurant review, it's not enough on its own. And of course WP:THREE is an essay, but given the lack of notability for the sources currently in the article, I'm hoping someone who wants to keep this can pick the best three sources they think pass GNG found so we can discuss them. It should be really easy if it's notable! SportingFlyer T · C 22:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "it's not enough on its own"... it's not on it's own. There's many other sources here. "Every source is flawed in some way" is silly, you could apply that to most things we call RSs here.  Even the most authoritative sources like the New York Times are called biased by someone or another, and by some 'media bias' rater sites.  It all boils down to - if so many news sources are talking about this Skyline Restaurant, shouldn't we?  ɱ (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Went through source nos 1 to 11 and the only one with indepth coverage is, as you say, no.3  Portland Monthly.  The rest are promotional.  No.10 is mainly an interview with the owner and some editorial.  The aim of the listicles is to promote eateries in Portland in general and drum up trade for the businesses featured in particular.  Putting in so many references indicates to me a struggle to achieve notability.  To be honest, I got bored seeing pictures of burgers after checking out the first 11 references.  If you've gone through all 43, I applaud your dedication!  Rupples ( talk ) 23:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is pure speculation, and unfounded.  Most news sites create content that readers will want to read.  I don't believe or see any evidence of a desire to promote in these list articles.  Many/most of these are reliable publications with reliable journalists.  And I do think adding extra weaker references does look bad, but your speculation as to the motives is unfounded and I believe incorrect.  ɱ (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess we just look at things through different lenses.  Anyhow, wouldn't expect you to agree with me since you use similar sources in some of the articles you've created.  I've not come across a single one of your articles at AfD.  Rupples ( talk ) 03:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So we may always disagree.  I don't rely on them or let it water down the refs section, which it seems people have an issue with, despite it not being a policy- or guideline-based complaint.  ɱ (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah.  Significant coverage in sources is always open to interpretation.  Well, I'm off to read another of your articles.  Appreciate you putting them up on your user page - the one's I've read are great.  Rupples ( talk ) 03:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My lists aren't very Current but that will be fixed... ɱ (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have to agree with the above keeps - good article including with critical reception from several sources.  Resonant Dis tor tion 09:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus