Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Smoke Burger (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Smoke Burger[edit]

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

unreliable sources for notability � DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AFD was closed as Keep in March 2015, See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Smoke Burger. I added the references discussed in that previous AFD to the current article. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as consensus can change and as it is that 1st AfD was questionable along with with questionable voters; I am still not seeing enough for an actual substance to emphasize a better formed article. SwisterTwister talk 16:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable international food chain, as seen by such articles as this. and this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (see below) I definitely agree with SwisterTwister's comments, as March 2015 was quite awhile back. Also, @Shawn in Montreal:, please keep in mind that MANY restaurant chains are not really notable. Please see WP:NOTABILITY for these guidelines. The article seems to have way too many primary sources such as this for there to be any sort of notability for the inclusion of the encyclopedia, at least from what I'm seeing... Regards— MeowMoon (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I daresay know our notability guidelines a darn sight better than you. this and this, to name but two, are from Canada's two largest circulation newspapers, the national Globe and Mail and Toronto's broadsheet Toronto Star. You understand? And secondly, you've just added this Afd a second time to the Food and drink and companies delsort. I don't give a WP:FUCK what happens, but this ridiculous. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Sorry. I didn't mean to use delsort a second time (another user had apparently already done it). I just added the script and am very new with it, my bad. But being uncivil is not needed here. Going back to what I said earlier, I was mainly concerned with the sources that the article provided, not with the ones that were or were not notable. After some research though, I did come up with a number of different sources that I did not see in the article when I initially posted my first comment above, so there is probably a good amount of merit to the notability of the article... On a different note though, I would like to get DGG's opinion on the matter since they initially nominated the article for deletion. I'm not sure what they saw (or didn't see, rather...) in the article that would classify as having "unreliable sources for notability" (or which sources were unreliable for notability). I have changed my vote to neutral for now, in pending DGG's response. MeowMoon (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. If I want to respond I will. As for "DGG's response," he's a regular fixture at Afd and I don't think I've ever seen modify his position, no matter how untenable or removed from policy. So I wouldn't hold my breath for that. You are going to have to make your own mind up and again -- I don't really care. Please stop pinging me. Thanks very much. Shawn in Montreal (talk)

advertorials at best, even if published in major newspapers, DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See? Utter and complete nonsense. They are major bylined stories on a Canadian corporation in the business section, which is exactly where one would expect to find it. Also, words like "advertorial" have a meaning beyond what you concoct for them. In the case of the G&M, they have controversially proposed to start doing bona fide "advertorial" articles, as described in this 2014 Marketing piece. But as you would expect, for a national paper of record such as the G&M, such items are clearly branded "sponsored content," which is not the case of course for Maryam Siddiqi's 2014 G&M piece. As for the Star, they offer a list of sponsored advertorial content, which does not seem to include their coverage of corporate Canada in their business section, unsurprisingly. I offer this detailed rebuttal to your weak "advertorial" hand wave not so much in the hopes that you will retract it or change your mind, but that apparently at least one other editor seems to be deferring to you for some reason. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) [Strike delete, please see below] Original comment: TOOSOON. The coverage I'm seeing is mostly local about restaurants openings and the like. The articles on the chain overall lack COPRDEPTH. It may become notable in the future and then a sufficiently sourced article could be created. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. These are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources (with the exception of the QSR Magazine and The Canadian Business Journal sources, which are still reliable and independent). These sources are not advertorials; I find it very difficult to believe that these media companies were paid by Big Smoke Burger to publish these articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Financial Post
The Globe and Mail
Toronto Star
The Canadian Business Journal
Manhattan Digest
New York
Village Voice
Gulf News
QSR Magazine

Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Source #1 - Financial Post - How a Canadian burger outlet made its way to the Middle East

Source #2 - The Village Voice - Big Smoke Burger Brings Poutine, Canadian Style Burgers to NYC

Source #3 - New York (magazine) - Toronto’s Big Smoke Burger Opening Manhattan Flagship This Year

Source #4 - Gulf News (Dubai) - Gourmet burger for your palate

This !vote was decided based on the General notability guideline. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- out of the sources above, "How a Canadian burger outlet made its way to the Middle East" is the most convincing. Village Voice is a free weekly, while Gulf News Express is a routine restaurant review. But on the balance of sources presented I'm changing my vote to a week keep. I hope the article improves in the future, if kept -- it's rather barebones. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2016 (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.