Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restaurant City


 * 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   delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Restaurant City

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable web app Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need a page for every facebook and iphone app out there. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We certainly don't need a page for ones that are not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Some coverage in RSes . Hobit (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage that Hobit pointed out isn't in-depth enough to write an encyclopedic article without using original research. It also doesn't appear to meet WP:N due to the lack of coverage.  Them From  Space  07:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just getting mentioned in an article, hell, even being the subject of the article, doesn't immediately confer notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, being the subject of more than one article does, per WP:N. Hobit (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not when the article is trivial. Or the source isn't that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hobit, please review the notability guidelines. It needs significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources.  It can't just be trivial coverage or coverage in unreliable sources or reprints of press releases, etc.  The sources you point out don't even make a borderline case for notability. Drawn Some (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing but trivial coverage in reliable sources and therefore not notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no non-trivial coverage. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:25, 26 June 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.