Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port City Java

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Tikiwont 10:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Port City Java

Port City Java (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

little content, notability, unsourced. This is an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages. Jameson L. Tai 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. and expand on the Dubai deal. Mystache 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done. Carson 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Mystache Jauerback 15:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Reasonable stub. Colonel Warden 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Colonel Warden. --Gwern (contribs) 18:51 26 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep Needs expansion but is notable enough.
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Does not fit into WP:DEL or WP:NOT#DIR, and has secondary articles per WP:N.Carson 17:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live in North Carolina. This isn't a notable business. If it gets kept, it needs sources at a minimum. What is the difference between this and an advertisement? Mindraker 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's more of a southeastern business, covering from what I can tell Wilmington/Jacksonville/Raleigh. It doesn't blanket the state, that's for sure. Carson 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteComment. I agree, that's why I nominated the article for deletion in the first place. I have told the user to use {{hangon}} and {{inuse}} so he could continue editing the article in hopes that the article would survive, but it has not been the case. Since nominating for AfD, the article's been practically untouched while the user continues to add more userboxes in his user page and ranting about "Tagging passes the buck. Deleting a good stub is akin to sheer laziness. Quoting a WP reference page every few lines to back-up your maliciousness only goes to show your lack of understanding of the core of this project." It's sad. Really sad. Jameson L. Tai 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. So, what exactly happened to "focus on the content, not the contributor"? How is calling me sad not akin to a personal attack? Also, that was posted on my user page, not directed at you in general. Mate, get off your high horse. Carson 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there a standard bar for notability on coffee houses and restaurants? If this is akin to advertising, then so be it -- there are enough restaurant articles to fill a volume, some of similar notability, and they should be purged. I should have clarified -- this isn't "all over" NC/SC, but is more coastal (Wilmington carries at least 8-10). I agree that it's not the most notable in terms of international, and under different circumstances I might agree with a VfD. However, it is a chain, and it is expanding into the Middle East, making it, in a sense, an international business. Just what does it take to make something worthy of an article on Wikipedia? Carson 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • weak delete There are still no references for notability--when the chain actually has built its branches into Dubai, and the media notices it, then it might be notable.DGG (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Article created 2007-10-26T12:18:10. AfD filed 2007-10-26T15:02:50 Looks like a bad faith nomination. I can't tell if it is notable or not. But the person who created the article was still working on it when the AfD was submitted. Needs 3rd party sources. WP:CORP guidelines need to be added. Infobox would help. jonathon 03:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes the Mzoli's test for me, give it some time to develop. And then give it some more time. Burntsauce 16:27, 30 October 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.