Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PizzaRev

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. The consensus was, when all the promotional content had been trimmed out, that the article was a fallow description of itself with little encyclopedic value. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

PizzaRev

PizzaRev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I thought I could remove the advertising from this one (two separate listings of pizza ingredients, and their two brilliant innovation of letting the customers wait in line,and letting them choose what they want on their pizza. But there's nothing left but PR and notices . DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I created this article in March 2015. Here is a link to the last significant edit I performed on the article in April 2015. Notice how this version does not have a promotional tone, and is neutrally-written based upon what reliable sources state about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. See my comment above for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete because the promotionalism outweighs any good, and this is because this is what the article was before removing the spam (1-24 sources counted, and now after: 1-17 so it hardly helped), but it's still promotional so it violates our WP:Five pillars of having non-promotional articles; copyediting is not what actually help here if it only sugarcoats the promotionalism instead of actually resolving it. GNG quotes that we need independent coverage, not simply secondhand press releases, see Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources or passing mention". Worse, it seems we were taken advantage of since 1, 2 and 3 accounts so far added advertising. Sections 1 and 3 are advertising through and through and the middle section is basically sourced to the company's own menu website, so it cannot satisfy WP:ORGIND and WP:CORP. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could the post-relist discussion consider why we should or shouldn't revert to the suggested revision by North America? Please bear in mind that promotional tone in an article is not a valid argument for deleting an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as, to quote WP:Notability, we need proven evidence the article can be improved, and in the last week of AfD's occurrence, none has happened, and I took the liberty of searching sources, to only find this and this; because the listed sources are only announcements or notices, that wouldn't be the evidence of independent reliable coverage independent of the subject, therefore mainspace is not the place to host such content. What WP:Notability also says is that articles must exist with no concerns in WP:What Wikipedia is not, the nomination here has cited WP:What Wikipedia concerns.SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹1¹ 21:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cllgbksr The GNG itself says A topic is presumed notable if it is not excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia is not, but since the current article is an advertisement (a violation of WP:Promotion) and, not only have I shown examples above but 2 other users have also, how can this promotion concern be addressed by our policy? SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I just read the article again, the only thing that might come across as promotional is the "Fare and operations" section. If that section was removed it would come across as simply informative. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – As stated in my comment atop this discussion, a version of the article is available that does not have a promotional tone (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - The easy evidence showing this article exists only for advertising is: (from the current article) The first PizzaRev location was....A second location opened....Pizza opened its first location....The first international location....Fares include....customers can have....a minority stakeholder.... All of this is in immediate and unquestionable violation of WP:Not catalog: Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and it wouldn't matter if they're verified facts, if they're still catalog information. WP:Not catalog is enough, and in the 2 weeks of AfD here, there haven't been any founded counterarguments showing the unapprovable article can actually be improved oncee an for all. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Whilst I tend to agree with SwisterTwister, a quick glance in google shows a majority stake was acquired by a former McDonalds CEO led fund, so the potential for improvement is there.

References

CV9933 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

On what policy in this based in, compared to the Delete votes above which are? A simple stake is simply not enough for Notability here. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete The various references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The references are either company announcements about a new restaurant opening or expansion plans. This review is probably acceptable as it is independently written. If another reference that meets the criteria can be found, I'll gladly change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- a smallish chain with no claim of significance. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and consist of routine announcements and trivial mentions. The article has an advertorial tone and even includes a section on "Franchising". Wikipedia is not a franchisee prospectus or a directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - For the record, I want to add to my argument against the WP:GNG. In the "Notability" section, it clarifies what exaclty presumed signifies, and it's: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for [WP:What Wikipedia is not]. Simply asserting "Meets GNG" is a different argument than actually showing and finally showing how the article was improved. Compare the articles pre-nomination and post-nomination. If an article was as easily improvable, I myself would've volunteered but, since there's no meaningful substance to be found in the simplest searches here, I couldn't guarantee I'd make the article satisfy WP:GNG after all. Even then, I weighed the amount of news and what's available actually fits what WP:GNG itself later says: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Publication in a reliable source is not a good indication of notability. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Therefore, WP:GNG itself says articles must be in acceptable condition to not only be considered and weighed, but to have any viable chances. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Go easier on using bold - it makes the text difficult to read and understand. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete references are poor, some appear to be based on press release, obvious promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I truly respect the oppose arguments here, whether bolded or not, which I alluded to in my Keep statement. I came to this article because it had a few unintentional list defined reference errors as a result of promotional material being removed. Normally I would have just fixed those but the article was also tagged for deletion which brought me here. I don’t really know much about pizza, let alone care for it; I can count the pizza chains that I know on the fingers of one hand. I want to avoid the argument other stuff exists, but we have over 100 US pizza chain articles alone and pizza chain articles in 23 countries worldwide. I find a substantial amount (read most) of them to have equivalent or lesser quality references than this article. In my view, this observation confers a precedent of general notability and actually with the promotional element removed I don't see an issue with this article. CV9933 (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

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.