Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Tony's Kebabs

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 no consensus/keep (close, since the "speedy delete as spam (not food)" arguments, article has been rewritten and it looks like it addresses the concerns raised). Neil (►) 11:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Tony's Kebabs

Uncle Tony's Kebabs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Borderline spam, unsourced. Clicketyclack 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(Note: not Spam (food) that is, but rather Wikipedia:Spam. Profuse thanks to User:Flowerpotman for pointing out the apparently undue harshness of the comparison.) Clicketyclack 00:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No independent sources provided for assertions. The text currently reads very close to the official website. With twenty-three locations, no great claim of notability is made. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete It's blatant advertising. WP:CSD#G11 applies here. Acalamari 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. It's WP:SPAM. -=Elfin=-34102:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, 23 locations is pretty notable for a company that only operates in Australia. The article definitely needs cleanup to get rid of the spammy tone though. Lankiveil 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Lankiveil 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as written, it's pretty spammy. Find some independent sources, and I might be convinced that this can be an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable Australian fast food franchise. Needs sourcing and a cleanup. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Akhilleus, and provide sources to prove notability. Assize 04:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and request those nominating delete to revisit article please - have since cleaned up article and introduced IMHO 2 alternative references which clearly establish notability.--VS talk 07:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment:You're right, notability appears now to be established, and the article is a lot better now with the advert copy removed. Sources are still needed for the long list of awards, but that's grounds for more cleanup, not deletion: tagging that section now. If there are no further objections, I'll withdraw the nomination. Thanks, Clicketyclack 10:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, notability has been asserted, but reliable sources for the assertions havent been provided. Google News Archives returns 14 results, but some of these are multiple articles about the same event on the same day from the same newspaper. John Vandenberg 13:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notability is clearly established by now. By the way, even if it were Spam (food), I'd still vote keep -- I happen to like Spam, tendjewberrymud. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:09, 26 May 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.