Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmo (restaurant)
- 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 Snow keep. No point in keeping this open, unanimous consensus to keep, and the article has been improved since nomination opened. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Cosmo (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm bringing this to AfD because the article has already been tagged as {{db-corp}} twice this morning here and here, though in my opinion a claim to be a nationwide restaurant chain asserts significance, and the article has references to The Daily Mail and STV, amongst other reliable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As well as the above sources, this Croydon News source states Cosmo is "One of the largest restaurants in the UK" and this Guardian source is a rather uncomplimentary review of one restaurant and this Express and Star source is another review of one of the restaurants. Enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This needs clean up not deletion. Insomesia (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep You brought this to AFD even though you don't want it deleted? Uh... can someone do a speedy close here? Dream Focus 19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is possible, though unusual, for editors to do a "procedural AfD" for articles other editors think should be deleted (in this case, two editors independently wanting it to be speedied, though one since retracted). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I'll go with a speedy close for now and hope it is indeed improved and made more encyclopaedic and less corporate. ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Snow Keep. --Milowent • hasspoken 01:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- a relatively small restaurant chain. Rather a lot of the citations appear to be to the company website, but I assumne it meets the verifiable test. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep More than enough references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Its claims to have Britain's largest restaurant are sufficient. It also serves very good food (yes, yes, I know that's not a good reason for keeping, but I thought I'd add it anyway!). I think Ritchie333's reasons for bringing this to AfD were perfectly acceptable. Now hopefully we can let this one rest without any more spurious speedy tags being added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2013 (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.