Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krieger's Sports Grill

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krieger's Sports Grill[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant chain, tagged as failing GNG since February 2013, and orphaned since November 2006. Distinct lack of any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, so WP:GNG and WP:ORG are not satisified. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News has a few subscription-only hits, but they seem to be from local newspapers. I don't see any national coverage, and the article itself states that this is primarily a local chain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles like this look like substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. St. Louis is a pretty substantial market and the restaurant has operated in multiple states. I think it's enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So one tiny, routine local source is enough? Really? Are you serious? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said stories like that one are substantial. A Goole News search shows numerous stories like that one with substantial coverage. Yes, I'm serious. The substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishes notability. St. Louis is a city. The sources aren't small rural papers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a city or not is irrelevant; it's still a local paper giving local coverage. And the story you presented was neither substantial nor non-routine in the slightest. Basically everything you list in that Google News search is routine, or from local papers, or very minor (usually a mixture of the three). GNG and ORG are not even close to being satisfied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Supporting sources are passing mentions, local coverage, and routine announcements of location openings, which don't provide evidence of notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Ibadibam (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability sorely lacking.

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.