Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandy's

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy's

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for small chain--no substantial notability. Routine restaurant reviews don't count toward notability DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:AUD. The National Post non-local ref is because the restaurant defied the province's Bill 101 language law on signage -- businesses do from time to time but that doesn't confer lasting notability, if they do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. The acceptability of such topics was established with the celebrated case of Mzoli's. There is therefore no consensus for deletion of such. Andrew D. (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on Wikipedia that single-city local restaurants are automatically notable. What Mzoli's has, but Mandy's doesn't, is enough reliable source coverage about it in media to clear WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear consensus that Mzoli's should exist and it has done for many years, even after its high-profile exposure as a significant test case. Its sources are all local to the region and, as it is a single branch, rather than a small chain, its objective characteristics are somewhat lesser. So, we have clear precedent and the objective factors are the same or better in this case. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its sources are all local to the region? I'm sure Johannesburg and Cape Town would be fascinated to learn that they're not half a country away from each other. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local restaurants are not automatically accepted for Wikipedia articles, and there's no indication here that this one is the subject of enough reliable source coverage to qualify as a special case. Half the sourcing here is to its own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-assisting source, and restaurants have to clear WP:CORPDEPTH, which requires quite a bit more reliable source coverage in both volume and geographic range than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a small local chain, with no indications of notability or significance. Not a community landmark or a 100 yo business. The article is promotional in tone, include information of the restaurant's products and even as "News" section. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly the criteria for establishing notability have not been met. Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. (off topic) Does anyone else know why my last 4 AfDs aren't showing in my log? Thanks,L3X1 (distænt write) 01:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.