Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak House

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. Per source analysis Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steak House

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organisation. References are PR and award is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has sources. Clockmaster68 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least a bit notable with good sources. Styyx (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was quick. Two SPA's. scope_creep^Talk 09:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Clockmaster68 at least has been banned. Perhaps their votes on this and other open AfDs can be struck out or removed. There seems to be a ton of that kind of thing going on lately for some reason and from what I've seen it's been happening way more with keep votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was very quick. scope_creep^Talk 09:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter seems to be the rallying point, that combined with paid editing. The seem to be desperate to keep it on Wikipedia as it is good adversing. This article is a steakhouse with 19 restaurants. 190 might be notable, but not 19. scope_creep^Talk 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im not paid to say this. ~Styyx (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article cites plenty of sources. SafeSweepy (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely paid-for spam, even more with the sock/meatpuppetry in this AFD. MER-C 13:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 28 year old company with 19 locations (references that need to be formatted). I will give it a go. Lightburst (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone know what a relible source in Saudi Arabia is? I ask because the two main (or really sources) in this article seem to anonomously written and usually we consider unreliable. Which, therefore, means they can't be used to establish notability. At least that's my understanding. Adamant1 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I am working on it here and there. A few of the sources are likely press releases. I will keep looking, I added several refs and reworked the article. Will see if I can discover the news sources of Riyadh. Lightburst (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media Lightburst (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm going to probably wait to vote and look into the sources more myself. I feel slightly uncomfortable voting on AfDs that mainly involve non-English sources. I'm trying to learn what the good ones are. I'd guess there's probably more on this company in Arabic. Although I could be wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overall consensus for these types of stores is the number needs to be in the 100's. There many many businesses with a couple of dozens stores fronts. 19 stores doesn't cut it. 190 possibly, or 290 I wouldn't even have nominated it. The consensus is, it must be in the 100s.scope_creep^Talk 19:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:It fulfills WP:ORG without a doubt, it has been a subject of a reliable, independent, secondary source here and has received significant coverage.TheIraqiAmericanYXT (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non-notable award, and it was given to the individual not the company, and it was so important to the individual, they never turned up to collect it. So its not significant coverage, by any definition. scope_creep^Talk 13:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Who said they never came to take it, and besides the awarding organization is notable.TheIraqiAmericanYXT (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. There is no interviews of them accepting it, whereas there is some of the other winners. scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets go the references:

Ref 1,2,3 are press releases. Ref 2,3 are duplicates. This comes under WP:NCORP standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage Not independent of the subject.
Ref 4. Advertising its new menu updates. This comes under WP:NCORP simple listings or compilations Not independent of the subject.
Ref 5. Dead link
Ref 6. Advertising it won an non-notable award. This comes under WP:NCORPof non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products
Ref 7. Advertising it won an non-notable award. This comes under WP:NCORPof non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products Same as Ref 6
Ref 8 Same as Ref 6 and 7. Same award which is non-notable hospitality award.Advertising it won an non-notable award. This comes under WP:NCORP of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 24 July 2020 (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.