- 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Little Grill Collective
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Little Grill Collective ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP WP:ADVERT WP:TNT promotional, advertorial article based on hyper-local sources on a 48 seat hole in the wall run of the mill restaurant. Graywalls ( talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Virginia. Graywalls ( talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- There's plenty of media coverage far beyond that for a run-of-the-mill local restaurant. Just in 2023, there's [1] [2] [3], all with significant coverage from different local sources. This coverage stretches back significantly in time as well. There is also non-local coverage, such as [4]. The article could certainly use some improvement but I don't see a case for deletion here. Elli ( talk | contribs) 17:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thrillist article is far from meeting the threshold of
WP:ORGDEPTH. It is not a significant, independent, secondary source, but rather just one reflective opinion paragraph, so this would not be the source that can be used to meet the
WP:AUD satisfying
WP:NCORP source. Some of the other articles are just routine articles about the local happenings in the local press about local interest. NCORP not established.
Graywalls (
talk)
01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- A source does not need to meet ORGDEPTH to contribute to notability (and the coverage in that source is not just "trivial or incidental"). These are just the sources I found in spending a few minutes to search; I am sure there are more that would be harder to dig up. Your assertions that this is just a "run of the mill" restaurant have been demonstrated to be false.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- SIGCOV, ORGDEPTH, ORGIND expects at least (at the absolute minimum) one source meeting regional, national or intertional coverage that is independent of the article subject company/group, in-depth, and secondary and multiple coverage by the same publisher or same journalist counts as one. What's really expected is a nice big slab of solid wood of the highest standards. In its absence, bringing in sawdust by the truck load is not a substitute. In general, the proliferation of local restaurant and bar articles has been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia and this article is no exception. Graywalls ( talk) 08:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- A source does not need to meet ORGDEPTH to contribute to notability (and the coverage in that source is not just "trivial or incidental"). These are just the sources I found in spending a few minutes to search; I am sure there are more that would be harder to dig up. Your assertions that this is just a "run of the mill" restaurant have been demonstrated to be false.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thrillist article is far from meeting the threshold of
WP:ORGDEPTH. It is not a significant, independent, secondary source, but rather just one reflective opinion paragraph, so this would not be the source that can be used to meet the
WP:AUD satisfying
WP:NCORP source. Some of the other articles are just routine articles about the local happenings in the local press about local interest. NCORP not established.
Graywalls (
talk)
01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep -- The sources already in the article plus the one cited by
Elli are sufficient to meet the GNG, let alone NCORP, which does not supercede the GNG. Although the restaurant's importance in music history is found in passing mentions, as noted above it's not necessary for each and every source to contain sufficiently comprehensive coverage in order to establish notability. Once notability is established, as it clearly has been, passing mentions are useful to include more information in the article.
Central and Adams (
talk)
00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's true every source doesn't have to be significant coverage; however a paragraph in a relatively routine coverage in which it lists places to check out do not amount to something that is sufficient to support
WP:ORGDEPTH. We have a 1/3 of a steak and a bucket of ground meat. A full steak that's expected is not found.
Graywalls (
talk)
01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I've already seen your arguments both in your nom statement and in response above. They don't get any more convincing through repetition. It's bad form to reply to every !voter unless you have something genuinely new to say. Central and Adams ( talk) 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's true every source doesn't have to be significant coverage; however a paragraph in a relatively routine coverage in which it lists places to check out do not amount to something that is sufficient to support
WP:ORGDEPTH. We have a 1/3 of a steak and a bucket of ground meat. A full steak that's expected is not found.
Graywalls (
talk)
01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (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.
- 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Little Grill Collective
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Little Grill Collective ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP WP:ADVERT WP:TNT promotional, advertorial article based on hyper-local sources on a 48 seat hole in the wall run of the mill restaurant. Graywalls ( talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Virginia. Graywalls ( talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- There's plenty of media coverage far beyond that for a run-of-the-mill local restaurant. Just in 2023, there's [1] [2] [3], all with significant coverage from different local sources. This coverage stretches back significantly in time as well. There is also non-local coverage, such as [4]. The article could certainly use some improvement but I don't see a case for deletion here. Elli ( talk | contribs) 17:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thrillist article is far from meeting the threshold of
WP:ORGDEPTH. It is not a significant, independent, secondary source, but rather just one reflective opinion paragraph, so this would not be the source that can be used to meet the
WP:AUD satisfying
WP:NCORP source. Some of the other articles are just routine articles about the local happenings in the local press about local interest. NCORP not established.
Graywalls (
talk)
01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- A source does not need to meet ORGDEPTH to contribute to notability (and the coverage in that source is not just "trivial or incidental"). These are just the sources I found in spending a few minutes to search; I am sure there are more that would be harder to dig up. Your assertions that this is just a "run of the mill" restaurant have been demonstrated to be false.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- SIGCOV, ORGDEPTH, ORGIND expects at least (at the absolute minimum) one source meeting regional, national or intertional coverage that is independent of the article subject company/group, in-depth, and secondary and multiple coverage by the same publisher or same journalist counts as one. What's really expected is a nice big slab of solid wood of the highest standards. In its absence, bringing in sawdust by the truck load is not a substitute. In general, the proliferation of local restaurant and bar articles has been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia and this article is no exception. Graywalls ( talk) 08:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- A source does not need to meet ORGDEPTH to contribute to notability (and the coverage in that source is not just "trivial or incidental"). These are just the sources I found in spending a few minutes to search; I am sure there are more that would be harder to dig up. Your assertions that this is just a "run of the mill" restaurant have been demonstrated to be false.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thrillist article is far from meeting the threshold of
WP:ORGDEPTH. It is not a significant, independent, secondary source, but rather just one reflective opinion paragraph, so this would not be the source that can be used to meet the
WP:AUD satisfying
WP:NCORP source. Some of the other articles are just routine articles about the local happenings in the local press about local interest. NCORP not established.
Graywalls (
talk)
01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep -- The sources already in the article plus the one cited by
Elli are sufficient to meet the GNG, let alone NCORP, which does not supercede the GNG. Although the restaurant's importance in music history is found in passing mentions, as noted above it's not necessary for each and every source to contain sufficiently comprehensive coverage in order to establish notability. Once notability is established, as it clearly has been, passing mentions are useful to include more information in the article.
Central and Adams (
talk)
00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's true every source doesn't have to be significant coverage; however a paragraph in a relatively routine coverage in which it lists places to check out do not amount to something that is sufficient to support
WP:ORGDEPTH. We have a 1/3 of a steak and a bucket of ground meat. A full steak that's expected is not found.
Graywalls (
talk)
01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I've already seen your arguments both in your nom statement and in response above. They don't get any more convincing through repetition. It's bad form to reply to every !voter unless you have something genuinely new to say. Central and Adams ( talk) 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's true every source doesn't have to be significant coverage; however a paragraph in a relatively routine coverage in which it lists places to check out do not amount to something that is sufficient to support
WP:ORGDEPTH. We have a 1/3 of a steak and a bucket of ground meat. A full steak that's expected is not found.
Graywalls (
talk)
01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (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.