Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Common (Waterford, Ontario)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Boston Common (Waterford, Ontario)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable local restaurant. No reliable sources, no indication whatsoever what would make this restaurant notable. Crusio (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand - People should be able to try to find notable references for this place in print form. I only tried to look up web information but I couldn't find much. GVnayR (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You seem to know this place pretty well. If you cannot come up with reliable print sources, who can? --Crusio (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This restaurant could be notable (at least locally) for the fact that it's the only restaurant that is between Waterford, Ontario and Townsend, Ontario. The notabily would continue for the fact that it's the most convienently located restaurant for the residents of Townsend (as only housing and government jobs are located in the town itself - the nearest restaurant after Boston Common would be in Jarvis). GVnayR (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You are confusing "important" with notability, I think. --Crusio (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As observed, you haven't answered Crusio's point about sources, and they are what matters here at Wikipedia.  Notability is not fame nor importance.  By ignoring the point about sources for several days now, you've not left yourself much time left to cite them.  And you should have had sources to cite when you created the article.  All that you appear to have had to hand are some yellow pages.  Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages.  If you want to write that kind of thing, wikia:Yellowikis:Boston Common, Waterford, Ontario is the place.  As pointed out, if even you cannot cite sources here, who can?  Sources! Sources!  Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, you got your point. I'm changing my vote to transwiki to Yellow Wikis. GVnayR (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete No WP:RS available; of course, if some could be uncovered, that would be fine...but per whpq.  Chzz  ►  01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no indication of notability. Those references do not indicate notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The notability of the subject is not established to date. Maybe in the future? Stormbay (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2009 (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.