Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newk's Eatery


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Newk's Eatery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not Notable. The only citation to something like a news site is sourced to a public relations agency. The other citations are to Newk's or to allied sites. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are sources, that can be found. Article may be improved. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fairly significant restaurant chain in the south. Article may need improvement, but not deletion. None of the sources link to a PR firm or to allied cites. Newk's cite itself only sourced for direct menu content. Southrunner10 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Actually surprised that this company didn't previously have a Wikipedia article. Definitely legitimate, worth keeping in the effort of making Wikipedia sufficiently comprehensive.205.197.96.2 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Certainly notable enough to deserve an article. This company is vastly more notable than the topics of many Wikipedia articles...2600:1005:B059:73B3:E4CA:A197:5578:53AB (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is worth keeping, there are legitimate sources to back it up.2601:141:1:2C8F:D86:90C1:8893:AA47 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sharp looking article, solid topic. No reason it should not be included in the Wikipedia universe.69.143.12.69 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we please hear opinions by some established editors to alleviate concerns of canvassing?  Sandstein  13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Although the subject seem notable enough, currently the article fails to establish its notability. Accuracy of the article is also contentious as it heavily relies on sources from Nation's Restaurant News. However, I believe the article could be improved by expanding along with reliable sources, and by removing any promotional content. -- Chamith   (talk)  15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A chain of eighty restaurants is obviously notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject is definitively notable. Article needs some work.199.52.13.132 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources do exist. The article meets all of Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. 50.201.184.131 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Although there is a case of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, I can see some sources like this in all of the PR crap, so it's likely notable. Esquivalience t 23:14, 10 August 2015 (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.