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

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 Procedural close because in this WP:MULTIAFD editors are unlikely to reach consensus. In this nomination 5 editors favored keeping all of the articles, 4 editors favored relisting them individually. There were 2 editors (3 with the nominator) who favored deleting all of the articles, and there were 6 separate entries which specified deletion of a specific article in the nomination. It appears that the best way forward is to close this nomination without prejudice against relisting. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are entries in the Defunct restuarants in the "Template:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon". This is list of non-existant restaurants. Coverage is generally routine, profiles, small review profiles and general PR. They are not notable, if they were notable in the first place. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 13:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are closed restuarant article with no historical or enclyclopeadic value, as well:

scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would suggest these articles are nominated individually. We don't routinely delete articles about businesses simply becuase they've closed. Treate this as a procedural 'Keep' vote if you like. Sionk (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than 50 of them in this list. Assuming I did one a week, that would take me to the same time next year. None of these historically important. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're just assuming there's no such thing as a notable defunct restaurant in Portland? Yikes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC

Hopefully we will find out here. 99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable and when they close, folk forget about them. They are transitory. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, There is WP:NODEADLINE for creating articles, and no deadline for deleting them. we have time. — Jacona (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (disclaimer: I've worked on these). I'm going to go out on a limb and guess nominator hasn't done extensive research here. Did you know Beast earned Naomi Pomeroy a James Beard Award?! I'm quite confident I could turn some of these into Good articles, but I'm not inclined to spend all the time and energy required to rescue them right now (especially given how this discussion's going). Also, nominator spends a few minutes nominating 14 articles for deletion, offering zero evidence, and I'm supposed to spend hours defending my work? Hard pass. I'll consider working harder here if the nominator takes a serious stab at a source assessment table for Beast, otherwise I have other things to do. If the community wants to mass delete articles about (I'd argue, notable) restaurants, by all means. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it for you, any day. Your one of the nicest editors on Wikipedia. I will do a thorough examination of it tommorrow afternoon. Ping me if I forget. scope_creep^Talk 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean an examination of the 4 citations currently used in the article, I mean a thorough source assessment based on all possible coverage per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Have see the articles I write? If there is any doubt that any of these notable, they will be kept. I conducted a WP:BEFORE on each of these. I was planning to do all them, but it takes a ton of time which I don't have. scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure whatever. Meanwhile I've added a bunch of other sources to Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro and that's just preliminary findings from a very simple google search. See also sources at Talk:Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think a better approach would be to add {{notability}} to these articles (and others in addition) and wait several months to see what happens. In the meantime I suggest withdrawing this nomination. E Eng 05:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EEng: It seems to be heading that way, but the cat:nn has almost 59k entries and grows by 150-200 entries a month, so I don't think that would address the problem saving defunct non-notable companies. Its not not anywhere else. It if ends up as a procedural close, I will nominate them individually, 10 a month until they are done. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. You could do the same thing you're doing anyway, just first add the notability tag, wait a few months, then nominate if the referencing hasn't improved, of course. That would give interested editors time to improve the sourcing.
Also, the fact that a place is defunct isn't relevant; only the sourcing matters, though for whatever reason there are a LOT of establishments with zero significant coverage, and these include current as well as defunct places.
Finally: what is the "59k" you're talking about? What category? E Eng 12:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The cat:nn maintenance category. Type in CAT:NN in the search box and it takes you there. I'm reluctant to put a note tags on each of these article as it would massively increase the amount of work I would have to do to delete them, particularly since none of them have left any lasting cultural impact. Not one of them, as far as I can see. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's one thing we need to get clear: "lasting cultural impact" isn't the test. The test is simply sufficient sourcing, and once something's notable via sourcing, it's permanently notable even if sources stop appearing. And the isn't to get articles deleted, but to get articles deleted that are on nonnotable subjects, and tagging {notability} in advance will save a lot of work by avoiding making nominations that will end in Keep, plus it's a powerful argument at AfD when you're able to say, "It's been tagged for notability for X months, and a few sources have been added, but it looks like it's still nonnotable even with those sources".

You're not planning to nominate everything in CAT:NN, are you? That would be a terrible idea. I thought we were focusing on this strange set of Portland (etc.) restaurants which, for whatever reason, seems to be rich with nonnotable topics. E Eng 14:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am. Of course not. I reviewed the first article at WP:NPP and took it from there. Nothing to do with the CAT:NN list. Forget that. Everyone of these fails WP:NCORP. They were non-notable when the company was in existance and they are non-notable now. We don't keep directories of dead companies, unless each one has made a lasting cultural impact, that is verified by references. None of the them have that. That is consensus. We are not a directory of dead companies. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EEng. Let's slow our roll and just tag and wait a couple months. Give AB a chance to improve the sourcing. There's no intentional wrongdoing here. I think it's just an editor who has begun to believe anything locally notable is notable. It's an adjustment of expectations issue. Valereee (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC) ETA: for instance The Maisonette. Defunct. Doesn't mean it wasn't notable. Valereee (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but there's also an editor who has begun to believe any restaurant stub I've created is problematic and/or any defunct restaurant is non-notable. Going about the discussion in this way is not constructive. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'm with you that a defunct restaurant can certainly be a notable subject. Valereee (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I nominated them, is because they don't seem to use post-existance references that show that people are talking about them after they are gone. Instead they are using the sames kinds of references when the company existed including lots of reviews. While some of these types of references are undoubtedly valuable and can be used to show it is notable in the day, they don't prove the company is notable now. It doesn't prove that folk and the cultural landscape are changed because of the companies existance. scope_creep^Talk 16:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Like it or not, the nominator is clearly engaged in wikihounding. This can't go on much longer. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not the slightest hint of notability. Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide. The Banner talk 18:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Naomi Pomeroy hasn't thrown her James Beard Award in the garbage can. :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess she did not. But the writer of that article failed to mention that fact in the article. The Banner talk 10:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Right, you're assessing the current state of the article but not available coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets look at each of one of these in turn to show why they transient and non-notable:
- Alexis Restaurant. There is five references, four of them are a routine annoucement of notice of closure, all dated around Sept/October 2016. The 4th reference is a passing mention, of closure and it used to serve Calamari. A WP:BEFORE and CSE search turn up 0 coverage on it.
- Altabira City Tavern There is 11 references, all of the dated before the company closed. A WP:BEFORE and CSE and Gbook search search turn up zero post-closure references.
- Analog Café and Theater Of the 10 references, 4 are routine annoucements, 2 are sex harrassement reporting, the other 4 are profiles and profile reviews. There is not even closure notice in the news. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
- Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe Bar of the week. 1 PR ref, the rest are no specific. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
- Ataula Two profiles reviews and two closure noticed. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
- Aviary (restaurant) Has 13 refs. 5 are closure notices, several clickbait review sites refs and routine annoucements. Mentioned in Fodors in 2022, removed in 2023. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed. It is mentioned in a review of closed restuarant, but its a passing mention.
- Aviv (restaurant) Vegan restuarant. No other coverage past December 2021. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
- Baby Blue Pizza Same kind of coverage but closed. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
- Bailey's Taproom Pub. Two closure notices. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
- Beast (restaurant) Fine dining. According to Another Believer, this may be notable. However, it is a quite a common name, and even search Beast restaurant, Portland didn't find anything. A CSE search found nothing. Gbook has a couple of trade review books.
- Berbati's Pan Nothing found after 2011. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
- Berlin Inn A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
- Bistro Agnes A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.

Of these 13 restuarant, 12 of them are non-notable and have no lasting impact. The fine-dining French restaurant Beast has a Gbook trade reviews specific to Portland, which may count but I don't think so. I've not seen any reviews. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SC, while I applaud your willingness to take on what is quite clearly a massive problem with essentially empty article on nonnotable businesses, you have just got to stop talking about "lasting impact" and so on. That does not matter. Once there's sourcing giving notability, then that notability is permanent. By continually returning to this "lasting impact" idea, you're undermining your argument. Talk only about SIGCOV and NCORP.

And I renew my entreaty that you withdraw this AfD, tag the various articles (a larger group than this, so we can start making real progress on this very big problem) for {notability}, and wait 4 months. Then no one can accuse you of not BEFOREing, and those interested will have had their opportunity to put their best foot(s) forward, source-wise. E Eng 14:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I renew my entreaty that you withdraw this AfD, tag the various articles
@EEng: FYI- Scope creep has been indefinitely blocked from editing this page, and so physically cannot withdraw it. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase unintended consequences comes to mind. E Eng 17:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, it's so hard to locate this and this and this and this and this and 25+ other obvious sources by simply googling "Beast"+"Naomi Pomeroy". You had offered to put together a thorough source assessment demonstrating non-notability for Beast but you "didn't find anything" so I guess that's complete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the single Oregon Live source, none of those links give NCORP-satisfying SIGCOV to the restaurant... JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the nominator isn't completing a serious source assessment if they "didn't find anything". I don't expect this will happen, but I'd ask User:Scope creep to please withdraw this particular nomination so we're not attempting to asses 14 entries at once. I have no problem with individual nominations but this is not constructive, IMO. Others have made the same request here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As Scope creep are now indefinitely blocked from editing this page, they can no longer withdraw it. Add that to the fact that a few other editors have responded in the Delete column, and withdrawing it would be improper. As would closing it as a SNOW keep. As a further FYI, tagging them continually on the page, or addressing them without their ability to respond, could be seen as antagonizing or failing to WP:DROPTHESTICK. My absolute best advice to you would be: you have made several good arguments here (at least I think they're good). The delete voters have also made some reasonable arguments. Whether others agree remains to be seen. It would be the best possible move for you to step away from this heated page and let the chips fall where they may. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not realize Scope creep was unable to respond here. I'm happy to walk away (the Daily Dozen discussion recently was maddening) but I'm frustrated because I don't feel I can defend 14 articles in a discussion like this. We'll see what happens. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep: nominator and friends are bad-faith targeting useful entries, and have astonishing misconceptions about the importance of the restaurant industry in society and to historical narratives. $ɱ$ (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a far cry between "the restaurant industry" and individual restaurants. A "historical narrative" is not quoting listicles that mention a restaurant that only existed a few years. The restaurant industry includes so many tens of thousands of individual local businesses, and I think it's a major issue to treat routine local news blurbs and passing listicle mentions as establishing lasting notability. Reywas92^Talk 14:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a sourcing bias on your part. My industry shouldn't be largely ignored on Wikipedia simply because restaurants are local (duh). Science articles get to be backed by scientific journals. We don't get that luxury. We get the sources we get, and Wikipedia's food, drink, restaurant culture coverage is fucking abysmal largely because of it.

ɱ

(talk) 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ɱ, please immediately stop assuming bad faith. Make an actual argument about why this subject is notable rather than speculating on the motives of other editors. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop "Assuming bad faith"? I've witnessed and even been explicitly targeted across articles I've edited, by these editors today. They need to be blocked.

ɱ

(talk) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I had to remove some comments the editor made that was a clear WP:NPA. scope_creep^Talk 19:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You two are making my head hurt. Both p-blocked from this discussion. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Far too much to try to consider in a single Afd. Garuda3 (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, Split into one AfD per article and re-nominate where appropriate: The only apparent commonality is defunct/restaurant. This is too large a set of articles to handle in this one discussion. I make no comment on the notability or otherwise of any of these articles. This is a procedural !vote 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Timtrent, This would be far preferable to this morass. — Jacona (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Jacona I see this as a good faith but unwieldy nomination. Each needs to be considered on whatever merits it may or may not have. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, I found dozens of WP:RS for Beast at newspapers.com. Did you search newspapers at all for any of these restaurants? — Jacona (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona FYI, @Scope creep has been indefinitely blocked from editing this page, and so cannot respond to you here. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bailey's Taproom. I see other Bailey's taprooms, but I don't see WP:SIGCOV here. Jacona (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify The Acadian. It looks like the coverage was pretty local and the food wasn't that good anyway. Jacona (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexis. There's not much coverage outside of routine local stuff. — Jacona (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete Altabira. Again, not a lot of significant coverage. — Jacona (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

You can't be seriously thinking of making 14 separate comments... That's just silly KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me to just vote all keep or all delete regardless of the individual situation in each article? Sorry, I think each article deserves consideration, they should not have been lumped together, but just because someone has decided to do so does not obligate all editors to throw away all reason to placate them. Jacona (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, exactly, as I have clearly opined elsewhere, each article does deserve its due care and consideration. I just think it's extremely unfeasible to expect all 14 discussions to take place _here_. The whole discussion page would be swamped! We are not throwing away reason, in fact we are exercising COMMON SENSE. All I'm proposing it, if you really must nominate them for deletion, let's do so SEPARATELY. Peace! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. But since the nominator made that choice, here we are. Jacona (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona If we consider this to be "impossible" imagine being the poor person who closes this discussion. The logical thing to do is make separate AfD proposals for each. You have illustrated the problems by opining separately that Altabira be kept and be deleted. And you are working diligently. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've also commented on "The Acadian" which is not even a listed topic (?) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, Ya, so many articles Acadian was short for the headliner Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro. As USER:Timtrent pointed out, it's difficult, with many people editing the AfD more or less simultaneously everything gets mixed up. These AfDs really should be done individually. It's a real cluster. — Jacona (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep Altabira. — Jacona (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Aviary. There's so many of these it's hard to discuss fully, but I believe the 13 refs in the article, including a Condé Nast Traveler are sufficient WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. — Jacona (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ This is precisely why this mass nom was a terrible, terrible idea, EVEN IF it's not Wikihounding. How can a proper discussion be facilitated?! Hard enuf to keep track of which article the Keep/Delete votes are for! Please, let's just end this madness... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked deeper into the references of the restaurants that seemed to have more specific support here (Altabira (but unclear if Jacona supports keeping or deleting?), Aviary, and Beast) and am not particularly satisfied the sources meet NCORP.

Delete Altabira. There are four local sources listed: 2 Oregon Live, 2 Willamette Week, Thrillist, and 5 Eater Portland. Neither Oregon Live article is SIGCOV, with the first just listing some menu options and the second announcing the closure of five of the restaurateur's restaurants: N. The first WW article is trivial and obviously PR, and the second is derived wholly from the EP piece on the owner closing his restaurants: N. Thrillist is trivial and of dubious independence: N. None of the EP articles provide SIGCOV of Altabira -- three are trivial listicles; one is clearly primary and non-independent; and the closure article just has a passing mention: N.
Weak delete Aviary. 8 sources: 4 Eater Portland, Conde Nast Traveler, 2 Portland Monthly, Portland Mercury, Thrillist, Oregon Live, 2 Willamette Week, and Fodor's. EP1 is strictly quotes from the chef; EP2 is a blurb on its opening; EP3 is an ok-ish but still routine overview of its closure; EP4 provides a slightly more detailed treatment of the same info on the restaurant as found in EP3, with the addition of some menu items and its local accolades; nevertheless, this is still purely local coverage: N. Conde Nast offers a primary, contributed account from a local Portland journalist of some specific dishes with little commentary on anything encyclopedic: N Portland Monthly 1 is an "editor's choice" listing with a brief, flowery blurb; 2 gives an ok-ish pseudo-review of particular dishes while announcing its reopening; but it's also local, so: N. Portland Mercury includes it in a weekly round-up of restaurant closes, although it does reference a lengthy first-person account from a Mercury columnist and a shorter plug from another Mercury contributor; but again, all local: N. Thrillist is a simple listing blurb: N. Oregon Live and WW1 are routine closure coverage: N. WW2 calls Aviary its Restaurant of the Year and gives decent coverage...but is purely local: N. Fodor's has 6 sentences covering the menu, which might partially count toward SIGCOV but is hardly outstanding given the website provides the same local freelance accounts of over 150 PDX restaurants...
Delete Beast. Strictly local coverage, much of it centered more on its chef than the restaurant and comprising only routine closure announcements. Notability is not inherited, so it's irrelevant the chef won a (regional) James Beard award. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's preferable for the articles to be put up for AfD individually. A multiple deletion places too much pressure on the articles' originator/interested contributors to add sources, some of which in the rush to avoid deletion may worsen, rather than improve the article. The point made earlier about placing a {{notability}} tag on the article and waiting, say a month or two, is a good one as it serves notice of the problem but gives contributors time to add quality sources, that may help establish notability. Rupples (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I understand the reservations about this WP:MULTIAFD. But to determine if this is or isn't a worthwhile bundling, while worrying about the likelihood of each article receiving due attention, one would need to try; after trying myself, I ended up with a good impression about this nomination. The articles are similar in terms of development and structure, have a very similar typology of sources, and are all nominated with the same rationale. This makes assessing them all in short succession relatively easy, and I encourage participants to do so themselves. Without going overlong, all of the articles fall quite short of WP:NCORP due to trivial and local coverage. Several other people have also tried -- I agree with the analysis of sources done by the nominator and by JoelleJay (regarding Altabira City Tavern, Aviary (restaurant) /I'll add: a non-notable award received by the organization is explicitly mentioned as an example of trivial coverage; in all of the articles, the WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS are not of the significant type, including the Condé Nast Traveler article referenced here/, and Beast (restaurant) /worth highlighting WP:NOTINHERIT again/). I am not at all against there being many notable defunct restaurants, but these ones aren't it. —Alalch E. 11:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split and relist this is not an appropriate application of AfD bundling, and it's not reasonable to try to multithread !votes for articles that are only related by a category. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split and relist. It is too confusing to consider all these individually in one AfD, and wrong to consider them as a group. Jacona (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split and relist. After examining the arguments here, I just don't think we can treat them all the same. Even if I were to say we should delete some of them or keep some of them, clearly the case is more deletionist/inclusionist for some than others. They cannot be fully lumped together. To fully explore this and give each page its due process, this should be split and relist. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For our collective sanity, please split and relist (ideally not all at once so I'm not having to expand 14 articles at the same time). If Scope creep feels strongly about deleting these then the onus should be on them to nominate properly after clearly outlining how each topic fails to meet notability criteria. Otherwise we are wasting massive amounts of editor time which can be better spent improving the encyclopedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For even more collective sanity, can you join me instead in my call that the nominator withdraw, tag the articles for {notability}, then wait 3 to 6 months to give interested editors time to improve the sourcing before nominating the appropriate subset again? Since he's been blocked from this page, I'm going to go ask him on his talk. E Eng 17:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.