Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Bravo Cantina

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, stubbify, rewrite.

[edit] Rio Bravo Cantina

Rio Bravo Cantina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Restaurant "chain" lacking sufficient notability. Basically hasn't been edited for over a year. The article creator made 13 edits total, 9 of which pertaining to this article and an entry on the Río Bravo (disambiguation) page. — [ aldebaer ] 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a notable former restaurant chain...unfortunately, it's not written that way. The article makes it look as if there were only two locations, when in fact it was a nationwide chain. Smashville 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Per this article, there were at least 54 locations. There are also 171 articles relating to its closing alone. Smashville 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hm. I see your point, but is there really enough for an article? The relevant parts of the article could fill (short) sections on Applebee's and Chevys Fresh Mex, respectively. — [ aldebaer ] 01:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, except it was notable in its own right...but it's a start...we could always start this one completely over. I mean, this is kind of like titling an article "McDonalds" and then just writing about one specific McDonalds. The way it is written, I agree with the nom, absolutely not notable...but...in reality, it was quite notable. Smashville 03:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, there are sources available in Google News Archive (but one must pay or go to a library to get at them). Certainly passed WP:N while it was in operation, notability is not lost just because it is defunct. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep and rewrite. Seems to be notable per news sources. Most are unfortunately pay to view. --Hdt83 ^Chat 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The options I see are (i) delete and create sections on Applebee's and Chevys Fresh Mex (with a redirect to Chevys Fresh Mex, as the last owner), or (ii) stubbify it to what can be verified, with an eventual rewrite. I'd favour the former, but it seems consensus swings in the other direction and I'm inclined to close this early as a keep and rewrite if no-one objects. — [ aldebaer ] 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. Smashville 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per AldeBaer's reasoning with sources provided. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP. Local popularity insufficient to establish notability. --Gavin Collins 09:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How does at least 54 locations = "local popularity"? Yes...the popularity was local...in every city it was in. Smashville 13:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, stubbify, then expand. The way it's written, this article's title should be "Rio Bravo in the Atlanta area", but the chain as a whole was sufficiently big for an article. Pinball22 20:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if only because I used to live five minutes from the Buckhead Rio Bravo. 8) No, as suggested above, keep and rewrite as there were certainly more than just the couple mentioned in the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 03:38, 13 September 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.