Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred and Red's

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred and Red's[edit]

I declined the speedy because although the tone is advertish, I think it's fixable. Notability is borderline, so I'd like some input from the community. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) — It's a shame. Seems like a nice place to do an article on, but this is clearly advertising, which would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. MuZemike (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is not blatant advertising and has already been rewritten to reduce the "fanish" tone. It is therefore not a G11 candidate. It would be nice to see another source or 2 though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be fixed. I'll work on it manyana. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Spam article. No proofs of notability of this restaurant to deserve an article here. Dekisugi (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to keep (see my review below). Dekisugi (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability can be established the usual way [1] although it takes a bit of digging. No reason to make an exception to usual practice here. Wily D 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those with concerns are free to rewrite and edit the article. The editor who is working on it has been diligently adding newspaper articles and other sources as per the concerns expressed. They've also posted about their efforts on the article's discussion page. If someone wants to steer them in the right direction, I suggest communicating with them there or on their user discussion page.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many new edits and additional sources. Please re-evaluate. OldManO (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a chance to read all the sources. Good work. References 1 and 2, and one link in the other sources are the same, so please combine them. Some of the sources in the "Other sources" section should be put as sources of a text. Please remove trip advisor review, as it is non-reliable. Dekisugi (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Advisor review removed, multiple references to same newpaper article converted to acceptable format. OldManO (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2008 (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.