Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S & M Cafe

: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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

=[[S & M Cafe]]=

:{{la|S & M Cafe}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S_%26_M_Cafe Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|S & M Cafe}})

Substub on a long-defunct minor company. ("Chain" is too strong a word; at the time of their closure they had [https://web.archive.org/web/20111006085220/http://www.sandmcafe.co.uk/spitalfields.php two] [https://web.archive.org/web/20111006085839/http://www.sandmcafe.co.uk/islington.php branches], and at their maximum extent had [https://web.archive.org/web/20090721183845/http://www.sandmcafe.co.uk/ six].) It's vanishingly unlikely that any source other than the occasional mention in local papers will exist, even if someone one day wants to expand it. (For anyone fancying doing WP:BEFORE work, for obvious reasons "S&M" is unlikely to give you what you're looking for on Google; searching their main branch's address of "48 Brushfield Street" is your best shot.)  ‑ Iridescent 08:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. I prodded this article without realizing that it had previously been prodded and the template removed. Iridescent has said everything I could have said here.  — Scott • talk 09:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is a no-brainer! The article doesn't add any credence nor bring it with it any significance. st170etalk 19:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as there's nothing minimally better for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.