Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy's Milk Bar


 * 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. ✗ plicit  10:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Wendy's Milk Bar

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Some of the text ties back to the company’s website, but much of its appears to be original research as it is uncited. Subject appears to be a run of the mill company, a before search only brings up peripheral mentions.

Article was previously proposed for deletion by and endorsed by, this was removed by  with an edit summary of major national chain for decades, that the article needs a lot of work doesn't change their notability. Glenefill (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. My deletion proposal had nothing to do with the article needing "a lot of work"; it was to do with the fact that neither cited in the article nor anywhere else that I can find is there any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article cites no independent sources at all. JBW (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia.  Kpg  jhp  jm  07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been a major chain for decades, and it's completely unsurprising that when I did a newspaper archive search (through NewsBank, which is the one our National Library provides access to) to verify this, taking the time to filter out irrelevant hits (of which there are many, due to other uses of the first name and references to the unrelated US chain), I found abundant, detailed business-section coverage over a very long period of time. The article literally just needs a lot of work. That you haven't heard of a household-name national chain that does not exist in your country ("run-of-the-mill company" my foot) and an article needs work is not a reason for deletion. (NB: It's almost always known as "Wendy's", not "Wendy's Milk Bar", which seems to be a short-lived rebrand attempt some years ago, which would be why your supposed WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up much.) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Unsourced and I can't find any. If it's notable, I'd expect some sources to turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where, and under what title, did you not find any? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Gbooks and Google, Gnews has two pages, unsure of which are reliable sources. They should be added to the article if they are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Under which title? (If you're not looking for the company's usual name, Wendy's (without the Milk Bar), no surprise that you didn't find any hits for them. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, That you haven't heard of a household-name national chain that does not exist in your country. I was well aware of its existence, but that is not the issue. As it stands, the article remains uncited in clear contravention of WP:V. If cites do exist that would overcome the notability issue, then the best way of maximising the chances of the article surviving would be to add them rather than taking pot shots at other editors. Glenefill (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability depends on the sources that exist, not the current state of the article, and it's very easy to find abundant sources in any database of historical Australian newspapers (as long as one takes the time to filter out the irrelevant hits). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NCORP with the following sources:
 * - Relevant content located at the "B. Some Relevant Cases" section
 * There is also this detailed source which fails WP:ORGIND due to mainly being based from a co-founder interview but usable for writing an article:
 * Jumpytoo Talk 18:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also this detailed source which fails WP:ORGIND due to mainly being based from a co-founder interview but usable for writing an article:
 * Jumpytoo Talk 18:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Jumpytoo Talk 18:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep as per Jumpytoo's inclusion of sources.ItsMackie (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree, with the new sources found, it's not much, but it helps establish notability, that's all we need. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Good sourcing by, references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 20:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Jumpytoo Great job finding sources. Hint: Once you find sources, do the next thing and add them as sources within the article.  It is true that their existence, even if not used in the article, bears upon the AFD.  But we should be improving articles, not just niffnawng about AFDs.  The job was only half done.  It's your choice and privilege, but it is my respectful recommendation.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. Cabrils (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2022 (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.