Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ponzio'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 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ponzio's[edit]

Non-notable eatery. One review in a local paper does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google search shows that it's very notable in that area.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable company. Schuym1 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article might just scrape notability, but if it does, the article needs to be fundamentally re-written (or, if no-one is prepared to do it, reduced to a stub). I can't see anything in this article that isn't trying to promote the place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [1], [2] , [3] which should confer sufficient notability. Also a bunch of NYT mentions including [4] Collect (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the secondary coverage found by Collect.--Oakshade (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete While I think the found sources establish at least some marginal notability for the diner, I am concerned that the article in its current form reads more like an advertisement than like an encyclopedia article. If a fundamental re-write were done to improve the article, I would say keep. Otherwise, I'm forced to give it a week delete until such time as someone rewrites it in an encyclopedic format. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a matter of editing and article improvement, not notability. --Oakshade (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed it to be a notability issue, what I'm saying is that this is a borderline candidate for {{db-g11}} "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Yes, it can be fixed by editing and article improvement; but unless someone actual fixes the issues, the article in its current form is better being purged until someone with enough interest comes along to write a true encyclopedic entry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be mentioned by many secondary sources Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources found by Collect. Other issues can be fixed by editing, WP:No deadline. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2009 (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.