Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quad City-style pizza


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Quad City-style pizza

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The lack of any links or refrences can't provide proof. Mschilz20 (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a significant recipe, even amongst pizzas. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At the article's current state, I'd suggest a merge to Quad Cities. I am still trying to improve the article however, so I may change my !vote later. Changing !vote to keep – see below. B  music  ian  09:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In conclusion, all of the references so far are either adverts for Roots Handmade Pizza or question the validity of the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've never heard the term, having lived here almost 29 years. There are 2 Chicago related sources, although not sure how notable they are. If more national sources can be found, maybe some on the coasts, I'd be more apt to keep it, I'm on the fence right now. Not sure the nominator's logic, as it has 3 sources explaining. C T J F 8 3  10:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time the article was nominated, the article was unreferenced, thus the nominator's logic. B  music  ian  10:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) proposes that this style of pizza is just a new name for a style which has already existed elsewhere.
 * 2) gives no indication that this phrase is actually a commonly used phrase. Seems to be an advertorial for |Roots Handmade Pizza.
 * 3) another advertorial featuring the exact same recipe & company the previous reference.
 * Comment - I disagree with the notion of and  being characterized as advertorials, because there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that any party associated with the topic paid the publishers to publish the articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Topic appears to pass WP:GNG, per this reference that was in the article:
 * and this reference I just recently added to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 23:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 23:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 23:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - More significant coverage found:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 23:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 23:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Northamerica1000's improvements on the article. The article is now adequately supported by reliable sources. B  music  ian  07:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see 4 sources from outside the QC area, seems like enough coverage to pass GNG. eldamorie (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2012 (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.