Deletion of Chuck-A-Rama

Comment: The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, in bylined news articles and in books. Meets  and . This restaurant was founded in 1966, so it's likely that additional offline sources are available
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUD)

Comment: Go ahead and delete the article then. All we need is a couple more "not notable" drive-by !votes and it will be sealed. It's curious that some users seem to be against restaurant- and company-related articles from the start, even resorting to !voting twice to promote deletion. DGG just "happened" upon this article shortly after I performed some edits to it, and is eager to delete all of the sudden, despite having never been involved in the article before. Automatically agreeing with one's buddy is clear favoritism, but there's no policy against favoritism. As such, it's not really important. Check out the revision history to see what's what: two against one: ST and DGG against NA = delete, right? Ugly at best, and ''potential'' off-wiki |canvassing at worst. This discourages editors from improving articles, and it is also creepy. The sources I provided above are examples; more are available. The solution appears to be for me to stop editing articles that DGG and ST don't like; then they won't be immediately nominated for deletion. Perhaps some Wikipedians just want all company-related articles to be ridden from the encyclopedia. I don't forsee much reason to care at this point; if it's deleted, then it will just be another erasure of American history. While we're at it, be sure to nominate Microsoft for deletion; it's sourced from press releases, routine coverage, and churnalism. This is actually quite true, see Microsoft#References for starters. Happy holidays, and godspeed with the anti-company crusade. {{emoji|263A|theme=noto|size=26
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)