Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grilled Cheese Truck

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Grilled Cheese Truck[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently notable , tho some of the sources , such as a local business journal, local newspapers, and the press releases reprinted in trade journals are very questionable, but article is too promotional to stand. I tried rewriting it, but it would have required complete rewriting from scratch. Among the unsourced promotional statements are "placing them along some of the best comfort foods and sandwiches in the country." , "numerous accolades" "countless television appearances" "well on their way to becoming the first publicly traded food truck. "

Among the promotional writing devices are a description of why the founder happened to conceive of the company and the use of the proprietor's first name by itself through the article, which is appropriate only for popular entertainers, a list of TV shows where they appeared, and a focus on twitter (etc) rank. (These devices are characteristic of paid editing, tho that's not proof this is--it could merely have been naïvely influenced by the style of the thousands of such articles in WP.)

Accepted at AfC; reviewed by the AfC elimination drive, which considered the acceptance correct. I've commented there. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have began to perform some copy edits to address promotional tone in the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in numerous local newspapers, and on a TV show ChromaNebula (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:AUD per national coverage in QSR Magazine and regional coverage in the Orange County Register: [1], [2]. I have performed some copy editing to address promotional tone, and additional edits from others to better the article are most welcome. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:GNG but it is a very good thing DGG brought this up for deletion, as it has vastly improved. Still some room. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm still new to wikipedia, but I had it in my head that notability was basically what we were supposed to consider in AFD discussions. Am I wrong? What is the reason for the AFD nomination? Bali88 (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bali88:, thanks for your input! An AfD discussion is to determine whether an article is worthy of being kept. One of the most common arguments to keep is regarding notability, but sometimes articles on notable topics are deleted because of extremely poor writing, or because they are blatantly promotional, and there isn't any hope of fixing it without starting completely over. Best case scenario is when an article improved, and then kept. Take a look at the article's shape at the time DGG nominated it, then compare to its current state. Hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It easily meets the standards for inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:30, 23 March 2014 (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.