Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shorty's Lunch (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty's Lunch[edit]

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

Nothing at all to show it meets CORP. All coverage cited is local. Before reveals nothing non local in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets CORP as it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources as contemplated by GNG and refined by CORPDEPTH. We don't require national coverage; we require significant coverage, and that is easily met in this case. Rebb ing 00:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 00:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 00:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Washington, Pennsylvania if found to not be independently notable. The potential merge target article has no mention of this historic local landmark other than a link in the See also section. A merge would improve the merge target article and would be a functional and appropriate WP:ATD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The business, although of local importance, is covered consistently by sources over the years and decades, so it appears to me that the coverage is significant, being so spread out. It also has an encyclopedic value as a local landmark. The article needs to be trimmed of intricate details (i.e. "the grill broke in 1980s and no one noticed"). But I find the notability established under GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is an exceptionally low bar, and this passes. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2016 (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.