Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Dixie Seafood


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Dixie Seafood

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, local business. Lacks Ghits of substance and significant non-local GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY.  ttonyb (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with nominator --Richard (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 05:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 05:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The local references are sufficient to establish notability. I improved the article a bit. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not according to the primary notability criteria, "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."  ttonyb (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So even those aren't useful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep local gnews is sufficient along side the gbook hit UltraMagnusspeak 11:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – a Who's who type listing showing only the addresses of the company is hardly sufficient to establish notability.  ttonyb  (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, I was referring to these --UltraMagnus<SPAN STYLE="color:red;background-color:black;">speak</SPAN> 15:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see:
 * This is a personally invested article.
 * This deals with it only in the context of a highway widening.
 * This may be useful. seems trivial as well.
 * This only mentions it in one sentence.
 * This is personally invested and trivial; barely mentions it in context of other restaurants.
 * This is a directory listing.
 * Comment – the one you mentioned that might be useful shows 370 out of the 577 words, I doubt if they added anything that would be useful. <span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> ttonyb  (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It showed more in the quotes in the search results. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Did anyone look at the sources? They're only directory listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A local "best of" pick is meaningless. We don't even know if there are more than one seafood store in Boca Raton that Old Dixie Seafood could be better than. I frankly find it bizarre that anyone thinks this kind of thing could establish notability. What's next, citing a Zagat rating? -PorkHeart (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even notable on a local level according to Wikipedia criteria. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article makes plausible claims of notability.  Sourcing is a bit weak, but I've found that finding articles online from florida papers is not always easy.--Milowent (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a local seafood store. No reason to believe it is especially notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is well established that places of this sort are notable. See Mzoli's. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – According to what criteria in Wikipedia? As for Mzoli's see WP:WAX.  <span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> ttonyb  (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:WAX which states, "Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.". This is a similar case and so should be treated similarly. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX goes on to say, "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons...Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". " This is not a similar case.  If one compares the two articles the glaring difference is Mzoli's establishes notability via the inclusion of valid sources.  Old Dixie Seafood fails that detail. Again, I see  nothing that supports the statement that, "It is well established that places of this sort are notable." <span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> ttonyb  (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article in the Sun Sentinel is not a personally invested article as one editor mentions above. It was featured because the business is notable. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel is our major newspaper in this area.  Nancy Heise    talk  04:57, 23 October 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.