Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry's Famous Deli

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. WPSNOW MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry's Famous Deli

Advertisement; completely unreferenced--only a primary source. Includes list of "celebrity patrons" without any citation. It's just another chain of bagel shops or delis; no claim to notability other than the tenuous fact that the owner might be related by marriage to the friend of someone famous. Mikeblas (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A ProQuest search reveals plenty of articles from the Los Angeles Times and several industry journals. This does seem like a local landmark in LA. The company was also listed on Nasdaq at one point. [1] The article could definitely use some cleanup and additional references, but it's not hopelessly bad. And I don't think it was intended as an advertisement. The original author seemed to have many other interests. Zagalejo^^^ 19:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google news search that took all of four seconds to do yielded a ton of results. Please research next time. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Miami Beach, Florida location, at 1450 Collins Avenue, looks like it might be a contributing property to the Miami Beach Architectural District. A query of the Miami Design Preservation League database indicates that it's part of the local Española Way historic district for its Art Deco architecture. The location alone probably merits some description in the article. (I was there with some friends about a month ago, and we kept calling it the "Target Deli" because the porthole windows resemble Target Corporation's logo.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Grumpy Keep If an article is unsourced and written like an advertisement, it should be improved and adequately sourced. Articles should only be proposed for deletion if they cannot be sourced. I am finding hundreds of sources: [2]. It even shows up in google scholar with 18 hits--extraordinarily unusual for a restaurant: [3]. Cazort (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Conditional Keep - if more sources are added. CopaceticThought (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A Google News search provides ample evidence of notability: [4]. The article needs to be rewritten, but it doesn't deserve to be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As evidenced above, there is no shortage of reliable sources for information about this truly "famous", and clearly notable, chain of restaurants. DHowell (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously salvageable. I suggest that if the content is an issue, the nominator searches for an interested party or WikiProject to do the fixing. If anyone does it before the AFD ends and informs me about it, I'm willing to offer a shiny barnstar for their efforts. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keepspam Chzz ► 16:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the abundance of sources indicated above. Yet another example of why it should be a requirement for AfD nominators to do at least a few seconds of research before they spend several hundred seconds setting up an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 00:43, 9 March 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.