I am interested to see what the expert community thinks about this scenario:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Knapp%27s_Restaurant&diff...
Relatively new user "Ipthief" (about 20 seemingly clueful edits between July 17 and October 25) decided that there ought to be an article in Wikipedia about the Bill Knapp's restaurant chain (now closed, but a verifiable "institution" in Michigan for decades -- and 900+ Google hits). So, Ipthief set out at 2:36 PM, writing the first forms of a stubby article.
Two minutes later, user "Diez2" lands on the page, throws up a {{db-bio}} on the page. In the next moment, Diez2 informs Ipthief's Talk page of the advice, "If you can indicate why Bill Knapp's Restaurant is really notable, you can contest the tagging."
Is it too much to expect someone to either (a) wait a little longer than 2 minutes before calling for a speedy delete, or (b) look up something on Google to get some gauge of notability . . . before making such an adversarial, deletionist move? Or, is everyone on such a red-alert for spam (even of companies that are now bankrupt and out of operation), that this will be the standard procedure?