Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eat n park

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 of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Christopherparham. — JIP | Talk 08:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eat n park

Blindingly obvious advertising. Quote from the article: "If you mention this wikipedia article, Chelsey or Marge might give you a free cookie or two." Sounds like they're desperate for customers. Delete. — JIP | Talk 13:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• The raison d'être of this article is advertising. A rewrite, including some of these significant factoids (which I have not tried to, as yet, verify), might still continue it as an advertisement. Still, any article here about a franchise is an advertisement in itself. Nevertheless, it was created as an advertisement, and Wikipedia ain't a spambox. So Delete. -LichYoshi 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. And because it's a seriously crap name. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and also because I'm to far to stop there and ask for the free cookie. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

*Weak Delete I grew up in Western PA and have eaten at these franchises many times (usually late night). They are well-known in western Pennsylvania and nearby areas, but not probably not elsewhere (see: [[1]]). While it's strictly regional, it could have 1 million customers (a WP company criteria) depending how customers are measured for restuarant chains. DEFINITELY delete the reference to the Etna franchise. Nothing against Etna, but ads have no place on Wikipedia. Jasmol 20:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, valid topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- rewritten to remove advertising. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Vote changed to keep as rewritten, but it may need renaming as per the official spelling. — JIP | Talk 17:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Vote changed to keep. Rewrite looks fine. Jasmol 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Vote changed to keep. Decent article now. -LichYoshi 10:59, 12 November 2005 (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.