Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basilico'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. ✗ plicit  03:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Basilico's

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This restaurant's only claim to notability is recent media coverage about its COVID stance. This media coverage only covers the COVID stance and nothing about the actual restaurant. As such I do not feel it passes notability guidelines. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Osarius 10:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. How did this ever make the front page? WCM email 11:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how? My thoughts exactly!! 😯😯😯 Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was concerned about notability as well when I saw the DYK. The article currently cites two pre-covid reviews, but both are from local-ish newspapers. I think this probably fails WP:NOTNEWS and, by analogy although it's not about a person, WP:ONEEVENT, but those two reviews are something. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously speaking, I did not create this article just for the lulz, but I considered that the COVID-era coverage has been enduring (across a one year range) and the PRE-COVID sources seemed adequate enough (disregarding any BIAS against "local" sources—does it matter so long as they are RS?) to get it to pass GNG, however barely. The nom seems to suggest that the COVID-era coverage is fleeting/trivial but I'd argue otherwise. While the focus no doubt is on Tony's interesting business tactics, there is enough detail on the restaurant itself--see the citations! And again, it's not a one-day Buzzfeed thing but sustained enduring coverage over the past year or so. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * [At the very least, "NOTHING" about the restaurant itself is a stretch. See the citations!!] inre: "This media coverage only covers the COVID stance and nothing about the actual restaurant." Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A certain distinguished administrator declined to speedy delete this (yes, this has earned the holy trifecta of deletion noma) and, if I may quote him without his consent, commented that it was "well written". And don't forget the good folk at Did You Know? who made its Main Page appearance a reality. Consider all that! 🤣 Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete A sputtering of recent news due to the nutty owners' policy, but that doesn't exactly make the restaurant as a dining establishment notable. I would sort of compare this to Shooters Grill (Lauren_Boebert) though she goes beyond the restaurant of course. Generic old routine local reviews fall under WP:AUD and don't establish notability. Reywas92Talk 15:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you surmising this based on a cursory glance at some of the sources cited, or did you actually examine each and every one? I disagree with your characterisation (sputtering, generic old routine...) Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom - this is an easy one. It fails WP:SIGCOV (passes WP:SUSTAINED since it's been mentioned time and again in the news, but only about their antimasking and antivaxxing views). The actual part about the restaurant is small at best and the article is clearly WP:POV in its balance of information presented with most of it being about their COVID related behavior (even if I very much disagree with their views).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:57, 28 August 2021 (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.