Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mildred's Big City Food

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. I see equally committed editors arguing for Delete and for Keep although the most recent contributors, after listed citations and article improvement are leaning Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred's Big City Food

Mildred's Big City Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a restaurant in Gainesville, FL that doesn't appear to meet

WP:NCORP. There is local coverage, but of the standard variety (i.e. giving out meals at Thanksgiving, open to customer suggestions, etc.) Also to note, article was created by the sock of blocked editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I would have said G5, except there has been enough editing from editors that were not the sock that G5 wouldn't apply. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The restaurant has received significant coverage in independent RS in two different cities that are literally 2 hours away, and in opposite directions. That's exactly what we need to see for a restaurant: significant coverage outside the local area. When a restaurant is notable, food editors from far away cities write about it -- in full, in-person reviews, which is what both Cunard's #1 and #2 are -- and the only reason for that is because they're telling their readers it's worth it as a destination (or at least worth a side trip/worth a stop). If it were even just a single instance, I'd be saying it wasn't over the hump. Two plus sigcov locally puts it over the hump of notability for a resetaurant. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article was pretty flimsy early on but I've expanded it over time with some more sources including ones that mention communication participation and ownership changes. At this point I'm comfortable in saying that it meets notability guidelines even if it's still a bit on the small side. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 07:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.