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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 01:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burger Urge (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)

fails WP:CORP. Supplied sources are not reliable. Got some coverage this year because of some advertising controversy but that's WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG per reliable sources that provide significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Sources provided only just gain notability. The page needs a lot of work though, needs to be more like an article and less like a promo. Ajf773 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead as the listed links are either simply advertising what the company has to offer about itself and its services (take the blatant mentions of its business plans and thoughts in those articles) to then mere articles about advertising controversy, which although not advertising, can and still is actually unconvincing for notability, because that comes and is expected with any company; a company like this is also going to take advantage of PR advertising when opportunities come and they show in those articles above, simply note the blatancy of its condom activities (note also the first link how it literally advertises their "marketing plans"....

....and then how the next article actually goes to show, once again, their business plans of expanding their business and their plans of specific locations, that is company-supplied and initiated advertising and we should not mistake as otherwise. None of that actually amounts to substance and nor will it. Once we start taking and accepting such blatant or trivial information, wherever published, we cannot be taken seriously to handle unconvincing articles. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't need articles on every fast food chain in the world. From spot checks the refences given above are essentially about this firm promoting itself, so WP:CORPDEPTH isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, some of the coverage presented above is routine, but I think the stuff about their somewhat tasteless and ill-advised advertising campaigns is out of the ordinary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Keep. While some of the articles are a bit transparent in their promotional aims, I believe there is enough to meet WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company marketing draws attention and coverage that goes beyond trivial and routine mentions in WP:CORP, so I would say it is just barely notable. Agree with above comments that the current state of the article is poor, but that is separate from notability. MB 15:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable. Besides, I trust Nick-D's opinion, as he is the resident of the country in question, and would have known if the company were notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, that is an interesting cherry-pick of the nationality of those participating. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:35, 22 November 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.