Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattie B's Hot Chicken (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this; I see the reaction to the sockpuppettry has caused an unfortunate-- but I hope temporary -- change in our views on promotionalism. I'll probably renominate once we return to rationality.  DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hattie B's Hot Chicken
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

very small chain, with only the expected local coverage except for inclusion on lists. The previous discussion was closed because of sockpuppettry, but that shouldn't prevent an immediate renomination.  DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not only is this a renowned local eatery but it has been covered very subatantially by national media such as USA Today and National Geographic. Very notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Comfortably passes WP:AUD and WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to, , , , , , , . For starters, the USA Today article is certainly not "local coverage", and is not a listing. North America1000 17:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per my !vote on the previous nomination. Non-notable as a chain, but main location notable as a significant tourist attraction in Nashville.  I've never been there, I don't like "hot chicken", but I recognized the topic from reading somewhere.  In my estimation it is a topic likely to be looked up by readers looking for encyclopedic information.  Meets GNG comfortably.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multi-state restaurant with abundant national WP:RS coverage, including many superlatives. Use the "WP reference" link at the top, and the WP:Advanced source searching. Easy meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of substantial national and local coverage from established sources, and it is regularly noted as one of the main culinary attractions in Nashville. And in reading through the previous deletion discussion it was very heavily influenced by misleading arguments and analysis from sockpuppets.--Bernie44 (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There's substantial coverage to establish notability as already shown above. And I believe any article that's not G11'ble, that's means it is promotional tone is fixable if there's any. And existence of more sources already shown both in the previous AfD and here. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * keep its fine. i trimmed a bunch of padding about hot chicken but it meets GNG for sure. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2017 (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.