Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zambar (restaurant)


 * 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Zambar (restaurant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Purely a promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It needs some background info, sure, but it has enough coverage in sources to be worthy of keeping.† Encyclopædius  11:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources given to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well developed article with sufficient sources. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - good coverage from major sources Spiderone  09:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly has sufficient coverage from independent secondary sources, a review of the references in the article would show as much. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 07:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment; sudden influx of keep comment with one commonality - "plenty of sources/good coveragre from major sources/sufficient coverage from independent secondary sources". But, none of them shared any link to support their point of views. It seems to be this AfD is getting canvassed with one common objective to save this article from deletion. Kindly note, I have done the source checks in Google News most of them are passing mentions which doesn't prove any notability for this entity at the first place. and secondly, whatever sources has been mentioned in current format are seems to be sponsored one or page 3-type vanity publishing. However, I would support and accept the final outcome of this discussion (no matter, whatever it might be). -Hatchens (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not know about the other but there was no canvassing attempts towards me, I'd also say that its unlikely to be the case for others as well. The sourcing in the article is fairly strong, for instance this article from BT or this article from GQ or this article from NDTV. They all have bylines attributed to staff journalists belonging to reliable publications and no evidence has been presented pointing to any form of content partnership. Some of the articles are clickbaity perhaps but who isn't these days. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:08, 6 July 2020 (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.