Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garduño's: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) Keep |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:'''Speedy Keep''', you've been behind the vast majority of speedy deletion votes on New Mexican restaurants, [[WP:ITSLOCAL]] is not a reason for deletion. Being purchased after falling into Chapter 7? being featured in Breaking Bad? being listed as "Best Mexican Restaurant" in Las Vegas, Nevada, consecutively for 17 years? How are any of these "local directories"? And, none of these articles are mentions, the Breaking Bad article even goes into detail of what Garduño's is. In fact, in the words of the [[Albuquerque Journal]], "One of New Mexico’s most famous restaurant chains received some national TV exposure". First sentence. [[User:Smile Lee|Smile Lee]] ([[User talk:Smile Lee|talk]]) 22:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
:'''Speedy Keep''', you've been behind the vast majority of speedy deletion votes on New Mexican restaurants, [[WP:ITSLOCAL]] is not a reason for deletion. Being purchased after falling into Chapter 7? being featured in Breaking Bad? being listed as "Best Mexican Restaurant" in Las Vegas, Nevada, consecutively for 17 years? How are any of these "local directories"? And, none of these articles are mentions, the Breaking Bad article even goes into detail of what Garduño's is. In fact, in the words of the [[Albuquerque Journal]], "One of New Mexico’s most famous restaurant chains received some national TV exposure". First sentence. [[User:Smile Lee|Smile Lee]] ([[User talk:Smile Lee|talk]]) 22:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. I'm really surprised to see an inclusionest recommending this for deletion. Any restaurant that can garner the best in Vegas for 17 years surely must be notable for that fact alone. Make it a multi state chain and deletion is really an unreasonable outcome. And besides the quality of sources is not in and of itself a reason to delete. The content and what the sources actually say matters. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 23:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. I'm really surprised to see an inclusionest recommending this for deletion. Any restaurant that can garner the best in Vegas for 17 years surely must be notable for that fact alone. Make it a multi state chain and deletion is really an unreasonable outcome. And besides the quality of sources is not in and of itself a reason to delete. The content and what the sources actually say matters. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 23:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' as per [[User:Smile Lee|Smile Lee]] and [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]]. [[User:DocterCox|DocterCox]] ([[User talk:DocterCox|talk]]) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:44, 29 July 2014
Garduño's
- Garduño's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost everything among the sources here is a mere local directory entry, or a mention. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, you've been behind the vast majority of speedy deletion votes on New Mexican restaurants, WP:ITSLOCAL is not a reason for deletion. Being purchased after falling into Chapter 7? being featured in Breaking Bad? being listed as "Best Mexican Restaurant" in Las Vegas, Nevada, consecutively for 17 years? How are any of these "local directories"? And, none of these articles are mentions, the Breaking Bad article even goes into detail of what Garduño's is. In fact, in the words of the Albuquerque Journal, "One of New Mexico’s most famous restaurant chains received some national TV exposure". First sentence. Smile Lee (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm really surprised to see an inclusionest recommending this for deletion. Any restaurant that can garner the best in Vegas for 17 years surely must be notable for that fact alone. Make it a multi state chain and deletion is really an unreasonable outcome. And besides the quality of sources is not in and of itself a reason to delete. The content and what the sources actually say matters. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as per Smile Lee and Vegaswikian. DocterCox (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)