Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceres Cafe


 * 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ceres Cafe

 * – ( View AfD View log )

articles like this should not be in wikipedia. They're basically travel guides. Put them on wikitravel, or Yelp. Honey-badger24 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikitravel is a commercial site which exists to sell advertising and make money for its owners. The WMF project is Wikivoyage.  That's not relevant either because it has a bizarre rule that a place can only have an article if you can spend the night there.  So, that would exclude both this notable cafe and its notable building – the Chicago Board of Trade Building.  Wikipedia is better than those narrow, restrictive sites because it is comprehensive .  Because it includes all types of topic, Wikipedia's internal linking works efficiently and well.  This then means that its search engine rating is high and so people use it.  So, if it works, don't fix it.  If you want to write articles in Wikitravel, Wikivoyage, Yelp then please go over there and do so. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this is a well-established restaurant with sufficient references. Victor Grigas (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per easily passing GNG and per above. Nom rationale reeks with IDONTLIKEIT. Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Chicago Tribune and Chicago Magazine coverage is good. The nominator appears to be making a general point about "articles like this", rather than directly addressing the sources in this article. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:43, 14 January 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.