Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bournbrook Kebabs

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. There is consensus here that this topic is not sufficiently notable to merit an article.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bournbrook Kebabs

edit
Bournbrook Kebabs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No google support fort notability. Fails WP:N even taking votes of students into account. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article received a double-CSD, PROD tag portion of the deletion process was apparently skipped and brought straight to AfD. If you have any concerns with this, feel free to contact me, but I have my reasons explained below. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reason for a local Kebab shop to included even if some local students like it. noq (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short-term Keep Delete at standard close Just Delete it, please, see below. on assumption the article doesn't improve. This editor is new to Wikipedia and this is his/her first article published, so showing good faith is greatly appreciated in the short-term. Is the article in keeping condition? No, of course not yet. BUT, what saved this from A7 and 11 is the mention of a local/regional media source and an award said to have been won. If these are shown true with sources, they would certainly get a clean bill of health from general Wikipedia notability standards for businesses. I admit I have no way of knowing if the article will stand up, but it deserves a shot to get off the ground and formatted properly first so we might not scare away a new contributor especially after they specifically asked for a little more time. I guess the 7-day AfD will have to do. Any help that could be given to the author would be much welcomed. Thanks... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you and I agree that as-is it'll go at the end of the discussion. This is also a far cry from how that article was, but if this turns into such an obvious hoax to meet G3 like that then I completely support it going. Since the article at no point in its existence been spamming commercial links anywhere or making outrageously extreme claims about itself (I mean, there are no weasel words or peacock statements), it doesn't demand G11. To directly quote the G11 text, Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Since there's no spam on the page, you'd be CSDing on only the name. That's pretty straightforward. Detailed researching of G11 shows it can be really specific about regional-level media and local awards as reasons to not CSD and run the normal delete process, which is the only reason I saved it in the first place. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An award + two verifiable and reliable references; enough notable Rirunmot 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete. Winning a mention in a local student paper is not a claim to notability, and no more interesting claims to notability seem imminent. Hairhorn (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - uncited claim of winning an award in a local student newsletter does not convey notability. I also fail to see the "two verifiable and reliable references" mentioned above - all I see is a Google Maps listing and an entry in a minor business directory, both of which prove nothing more than that the restaurant exists, as do hundreds of thousands of other restaurants....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. For goodeness sake. Non-notable company. WP is not a directory. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI Just reverted vandalism by an anon user that had changed other users comments. Edit history implies they may be related to the creator of the article up for deletion. noq (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closer inspection shows that the Bournbrook article used to mention another winner of the student paper award until 92.236.180.136 changed it to Bournbrook Kebabs. Google searches match only wiki pages if quotes are used, lots of others without quotes. I think this is a hoax. noq (talk) 6:46 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)
Vandalism again - above comment was deleted by 92.236.180.136. noq (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Irregularities: See here[1] where the author contacts me and. Well, I think it speaks for itself. I don't suppose that's close enough to author requesting delete? Likely no, but worth tossing up. As to why they blanked the page here I have no idea whatsoever, and that's completely unacceptable under any circumstances. I'll try to speak with them directly, but in hoping I don't need to return here again I scored out earlier comments and changed to Delete. User needs mentoring on some basics first. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author clearly isn't requesting that the article be deleted, in fact he/she is requesting your help to stop the article getting deleted. When he/she says "feel free to delete this", it is referring to the comment placed on your talk page, not the article itself -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris the Dude is correct, I do NOT want my article on Bournbrook Kebabs deleted. I meant the comment I had left on Datheisens page where I am clearly asking for help on the article. Some useful advice would be greatly appreciated!!

I am unaware of people deleting comments, I am sorry this has been happening but I find it very rude and inappropraite. Unfortunatly I am unaware of who is doing it and so can not do anything except offer my apolgies on behalf of the inconsiderate person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polonius-laid (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only chance you have of getting this article saved is if you can provide evidence that the kebab shop is notable, which in Wikipedia terms means that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:N). What that means is that you'd need to be able to prove (with evidence to back it up i.e citations (see WP:CITE), not just relying on people "taking your word for it") that the kebab shop has been the subject of coverage in mainstream newspapers, TV programmes, reliable websites which employ paid editing staff, etc. So far the article only mentions a throwaway reference in a local student newsletter, which I'm afraid doesn't cut it. If you can produce anything like I've detailed above, you might be in with a chance. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who started the article invites a would be deletor to call to the establishment for a free burger and chips, raising suspicions that the desperation to keep the article is promotional. Either that, or the quality of one side of the debate here makes me very worried about the entry levels for University nowadays. Kevin McE (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bournbrook_Kebabs&oldid=1089931533"