Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spangles (restaurant) (2nd nomination)

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.--Wizardman 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spangles (restaurant)

Spangles (restaurant) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

notability, WP is not a directory, edits consist of little but vandalism Chevinki 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Link to first AFD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spangles (restaurant) —Celithemis 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing has really changed since that first debate (recently!) It really shouldn't be back here again.--Hobit 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a chain of 19 is not insignificant. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment but there's nothing notable about this small chain of restaurants except a fluff piece written a few years ago. That's where all the info in the article comes from. Chevinki 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Its true the piece could be written better, i still think that a cahin of 19 restaurants is singificant. If this chain were in Sydney, London or California or somewhere whether we'd be having this argument though. I really like the idea that facts from other places. How less significant is this rather than footballers or 1960s Playboy playmates or monsters in D&D all of which have entries...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment I think we would be having this argument no matter where it was located. You're still getting your info for a 3 year old fluff piece. WP is not a directory of every minor restaurant chain in the US. It does not meet the notability guidelines in WP:ORG which states that in-depth coverage is needed from multiple independent sources. WP:LOCAL says "

If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all.

The most this article deserves is a Merge. This isn't even getting into all the spam and vandalism this article attracts and nobody seems to notice. Chevinki 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per Casliber. --Hobit 16:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Seems awfully spammy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Betaeleven (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC). Betaeleven 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - 19 restaurants in a local chain may not be insignificant, but the subject is still not notable. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still not persuaded, but the consensus is becoming clear. Changing opinion to abstain. -- BPMullins | Talk 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 8thstar 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.155.44.74 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - Searching Google, I found a few sources that could be incorporated into the article, including an informative Lawrence Journal-World article, an informative Topeka article at Witchita Business Journal, an article at lawrence.com, another article at Wichita Business Journal, another at Lawrence Journal-World, the University of Kansas, a quote at KWCH-TV, Ragged Edge reporting on an organization suing Spangles for discriminating against people with disabilities. These are in addition to the one cited in the article; more may exist, but this was a brief search. Notable, so keep. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I updated the page substantially. It could probably still use some editing, since I'm not too sure about the tone, and because I wasn't at all familiar with the chain before updating the content. Since I went to the effort of adding so much content to the page, my answer is changed to Strong keep. :) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 06:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - It's a big enough chain. WP is indeed not a directory. It is an encyclopedia. And no matter how many times folks say "WP is not a directory," not even putting the effort to write out the word Wikipedia, Wikipedia will remain an encyclopedia. Which is essentially a directory of knowledge. Regardless, my reasoning for Keep is that the article is well-sourced, and has been expanded significantly. There's definitely enough there for a decent article. Canæn 06:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, well-written, well-referenced article. Nothing else should matter. If these restaurants were scattered throughout New York City, rather than throughout Kansas, there would be no debate. — CharlotteWebb 06:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article has been tidied up and greatly improved since yesterday. I agree with those saying that if this chain were in London/New York/Sydney etc there would be no debate here. Arguably they are less notable as they are "only" in Kansas. However Kansas is a location of some significance and there are 19 restaurants, we're not talking one coffee shop in a little village in the Outer Hebredies here. Jules 09:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I nominated this article because it was often vandalized, had little to no information, and in the year and months since its creation nobody bothered to expand on it or seem to care much about how much it was vandalized until I nominated it for deletion. This cleaned up version is the result of this nomination (check the history if you don't believe me). There was no "geography bias" on my part against Kansas or rural areas and I DON'T appreciate the implication that there was. Kindly stop now. Chevinki 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If vandalism was the main issue then the answer would have been a protect or semi-protect rather than putting it up for deletion.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism wasn't the only issue. Read the entire comment. By assuming I did it out of any geographic bias you're violating the spirit of Assume Good Faith. I haven't assumed that you want to keep it because of any geographic bias but because you think the article deserves to stay on its merits. I expect the same courtesy in return. Chevinki 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The geography bias issue arises from the subsequent comments from other contributors, not from the original nomination. Jules 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article would not have been cleaned up any time soon if it hadn't been nominated, so thanks for being bold and taking action about it, Chevinki. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, this AfD is a good example of how the AfD process can work very well to improve an article rather than getting an article deleted. Jules 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No prob. Thanks for cleaning it up Strangerer and Jules. Looks like everything worked out and Wikipedia benefited. Chevinki 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
        • True - I agree with that. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been significantly improved (see diff) and numerous additional sources have been added that establish notability. -- Black Falcon 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well covered corporation, so WP:CORP is satisfied. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 13 March 2007 (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.