Talk:Cosmo (restaurant)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... it is a well known restaurant chain and are regularly filled to capacity with up to an hour wait at the weekend. The chain has 12 restaurants and will add 4 more in 2013, the chain serves over 25,000 people every week and is really well known in the cities it has restaurants. I see the companies presence on Wikipedia is as relevant as Frankie & Benny's and although I must admit it could use alot more information I think if it was deleted from Wikipedia it would be a big mistake. --Fhs man 2 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Have reliable sources written about Cosmo? If they have, please add that information to the article to prevent its deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Domestos Reliable Sources. Kills all A7s. Dead.

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... this page has already been nominated for speedy deletion in the past and has been overruled and has been seen as relevant. --Fhs man 2 (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case I suggest that you add some reliable third party sources and make the article more encyclopaedic. Regarding the deletion nominations only one person defended the article. I'm sure it can be improved to better reflect real notability rather than sounding like a corporate promotional page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The article did have reliable sources when I looked at it, I've suggested some more to look at it on the AfD, and another editor has added a few. Nobody has endorsed deletion on the relevant AfD either - if it was a genuine A7 it might be closed as "snow delete" by now. With respect, you're just biting a bit too much here - if you suggest to a newbie to add reliable sources when they're already there, they're going to get seriously confused. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right that I was too snappy on this one though it needs improvement to sound less corporate and more encyclopaedic. ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - there are certainly too many references to primary sources still sitting in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cosmo (restaurant). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130107041158/http://www.cosmo-restaurants.co.uk/about.html to http://www.cosmo-restaurants.co.uk/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123003929/http://www.cosmo-restaurants.co.uk/our-menu.html to http://www.cosmo-restaurants.co.uk/our-menu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)