Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boloco

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. hmwithτ 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boloco

Boloco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article was deleted by me after WP:PROD expiry on the basis that the topic, a Boston-local restaurant chain, lacked sufficient notability to be retained. An editor who appears not to have been involved in editing the original article has requested that the article be restored based on the supposition that it is indeed sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Boloco is a part of the Boston cuisine tapestry and reliable source mentions placed on my talk page attest to this. Though I remain convinced that a stand-alone article for this company is not warranted, I think that a discussion here would be beneficial. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as the article currently stands, there's no assertion of notability. I trust GC's judgement, but more importantly, he has provided some reasonable sources to attest to Boloco's notability. I'd say Keep, based on his sources (which should be incorporated into the article post-haste, in case lazy people just look at the article and not your link :P). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• After a quick Google search, I turned up a few more that might be used: [1] [2] [3] [4]. These combined with the other ones I've already found make my !vote a solid Keep as well. Boloco is a very common sight around Boston, and they have locations through the Northeast US as well. I'll work on getting these integrated into the article today. GlassCobra 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I've expanded the article a bit with some of the sources, and think it's coming along as a pretty decent stub at the moment. GlassCobra 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete - The sources combed up so far are insufficient. The Boston articles are borderline (one paragraph in an article about an overall trend about burritos; I'm not calling it trivial, but near trivial) and student newspapers do not establish notability. Don't think of the sources as verifying whether the place exists; think about them as verifying facts which make Boloco notable. Ask yourself what facts we can fill this article with from independent sources which will make it worth reading to anyone. Nothing, so far, I think. Could be persuaded if someone comes up with something other than sells food to college kids and manages to pull off one moderately eco-friendly PR stunt. Savidan 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Technically speaking, I'd say the sources suffice to pass WP:CORP. That being said, the limited scope of the sources will obviously limit how informational the article may be, but there is no solid reason to delete the current stub-esque article. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per Above -- JT^Holla! 16:05, 14 April 2008 (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.