Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milt's Stop & Eat


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Milt's Stop & Eat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Some don't even mention the restaurant in the body of the article and most are ads or standard business listings or mere mentions-in-passing and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 11:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 11:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 11:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per the following source assessment table:
 * –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  11:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Response What utter nonsense. Take for example the NatGeo reference which FormalDude says "Contains just about all the coverage you can for a small restaurant". The article says exactly the following: "After riding, dusty spandex-clad bikers head to Milt’s Stop & Eat, a beloved 1954 diner that sells local beef and buffalo burgers and milkshakes whirled with handmade ice cream." This is not "significant coverage" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH which says Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. The other 4 references are equally poor. I realise FormalDude is the creator of the article but the source assessment table is just plain wrong and deliberately misleading.  HighKing++ 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not going to be engaging with HighKing anymore. Editors can come to their own conclusions about whether a sentence that describes the location, age, menu, and and type of restaurant is an "overview, description, commentary, discussion." I think it clearly is. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  19:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Equally I think editors can come to their own conclusions about whether a sentence is "deep and significant coverage". Or more like "trivial coverage" such as the examples found in CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 20:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Equally I think editors can come to their own conclusions about whether a sentence is "deep and significant coverage". Or more like "trivial coverage" such as the examples found in CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 20:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep whilst I don't typically prepare elaborate source assessment table during AFC reviews, I go through the each reference presented during the submission request. Yes, many references are by the way kind, but overall impression from the references is that the diner gets recommended as a stop for trails/visits in various independent and not local websites. Thus, I felt that it was sufficient for mainspace. P.S. This is probably one of the first AfDs on the drafts/articles I have reviewed. Whatever the outcome of this AfD, I will accept and improve my reviewing. – robertsky (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, which references do you believe meet WP:NCORP criteria?  HighKing</b>++ 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: With the sources given by FormalDude, plus the New York Times, Runners World, and a bunch of other reviews:, , , , , , I would say there's enough in-depth sources to pass WP:PRODUCTREV and NCORP in general. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment . None of those references are "reviews", they are recommendations at best and therefore do not meet the criteria for establishing notability as per PRODUCTDEV. Has anybody actually reviewed this place in detail like a real restaurant review? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.