Talk:Becky's Diner
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Becky's Diner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph of better quality be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Maine may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It passed an AfD no consensus? Really!
editReally? Do you have a link to the voting page I could see? I do not see any notablity at all? How soon is it kosher to nom again? - Glen TC (Stollery) 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The vote is linked. It easily meets the guidelines at WP:CORP. If you horribly disagree, take it to deletion review, don't waste people's time w/another AfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure how an AfD wastes peoples time as voting is voluntary but no I definitely wouldn't reading your reply, I wasn't sure hence why I asked when it would be Kosher. I somewhat disagree that it easily meets WP:CORP - one uncited published mention, a website rating of 2 stars, and one tv "spot" does not equate to "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" especially as we cannot see the alledged magazine "spread" (could well be an advertorial for example). The website does not even qualify for an Alexa ranking and 260 unique google hits kinda wipe the multiple published works theory in my mind. However, the people have spoken and I am obviously in the minority, so this is all I shall say henceforth on the matter. Thanks for taking the time to reply too, appreciated :) - Glen TC (Stollery) 16:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to actually check the debate at the AfD. It's not "one uncited published rating" and "one tv 'spot.'" WP:CORP's guidelines indicate "multiple media mentions," and it easily, easily passed that guideline. You're actually not in the minority in a strict up-or-down vote, the issue is the standards set forth by the community. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- But you see I shouldn't HAVE to go read other pages - my argument is about the worthyness of THIS article - it mentions a website review of 2 stars, a mention in Gourmet magazine which, now I have read the AfD actually was not a "spread" at all but rather "a Roadfood" column...at backroads diners and other vernacular places." and a "spot" on a tv show. If there are in fact hundreds of articles on the diner then why on earth aren't they mentioned in the article? To be honest, this is how it reads to me
- "A mother of 6 thinks fishermen need a place to eat opens a diner - and even added new hours. Known for breakfast and inexpensive dinners. Once had a "spread" in Gourmet magazine (apparent exaggeration), a 2 star internet review and a spot on a cooking show. Bobby Brown, Tipper Gore, and Hillary Clinton have eaten there before (uncited)."
- But you see I shouldn't HAVE to go read other pages - my argument is about the worthyness of THIS article - it mentions a website review of 2 stars, a mention in Gourmet magazine which, now I have read the AfD actually was not a "spread" at all but rather "a Roadfood" column...at backroads diners and other vernacular places." and a "spot" on a tv show. If there are in fact hundreds of articles on the diner then why on earth aren't they mentioned in the article? To be honest, this is how it reads to me
- You might want to actually check the debate at the AfD. It's not "one uncited published rating" and "one tv 'spot.'" WP:CORP's guidelines indicate "multiple media mentions," and it easily, easily passed that guideline. You're actually not in the minority in a strict up-or-down vote, the issue is the standards set forth by the community. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure how an AfD wastes peoples time as voting is voluntary but no I definitely wouldn't reading your reply, I wasn't sure hence why I asked when it would be Kosher. I somewhat disagree that it easily meets WP:CORP - one uncited published mention, a website rating of 2 stars, and one tv "spot" does not equate to "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" especially as we cannot see the alledged magazine "spread" (could well be an advertorial for example). The website does not even qualify for an Alexa ranking and 260 unique google hits kinda wipe the multiple published works theory in my mind. However, the people have spoken and I am obviously in the minority, so this is all I shall say henceforth on the matter. Thanks for taking the time to reply too, appreciated :) - Glen TC (Stollery) 16:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- sorry but I don't think Britannica will be banging on our door looking to follow our lead. Again, I don't want to argue, but your claim of "multiple media mentions," seems rather redundant when I am looking at an article that states quite the opposite. Just my $0.02. - Glen TC (Stollery) 16:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- So we need to add the media mentions to further expand the articles. Sounds good to me. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- sorry but I don't think Britannica will be banging on our door looking to follow our lead. Again, I don't want to argue, but your claim of "multiple media mentions," seems rather redundant when I am looking at an article that states quite the opposite. Just my $0.02. - Glen TC (Stollery) 16:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Becky's Diner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110111950/http://portland.thephoenix.com/thebest/portland/2008/food/greasyspoon/ to http://portland.thephoenix.com/thebest/portland/2008/food/greasyspoon/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)