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. Like often with notability, the discussion here focused on whether the sources established sufficient notability, with editors disagreeing whether coverage is substantial or not. Minor concerns, such as violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY were not echoed by others. In the end, there is no consensus what to do with this article at this point. SoWhy 20:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Certified Burgers

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hero Certified Burgers (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)

'Delete and Salt, promotional advertising in and out, and let's look at the sources summarized: 1 is a local business article about an announcement with 2 closely following this example, 3 is the company's own overview, 4 is an Indiscriminate list of information on a yearly "guide", 5 is once again a company announcement but published elsewhere, 6 is back to the beginning with a local business article about the company's own pleasing words, 7 is once again a guide but in a local TV station this time, and 8 is simply another Indiscriminate local news story about a local event of interest. Now, to actually look deeper into the words:

I could obviously go on there but searches find symmetrical images to this here and here, but it's clear they're all personally made profiles and not the actual material needed here for WP:CORP and it's simply not possible to ever consider a menu, wherever published, to actually be independent. WP:Deletion policy begins with do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed....Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The necessary need for Salting is the past 3 deletions, all varied from AfD (2008), G11 (2014 and 2017); mainspace is not the place for hosting such repeats and certainly not when an AfD from 9 years concluded the same consensus; note that the 2014 version is what was deleted this month, therefore the 2014 AfD is no longer relevant. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Certified Burgers is a Canadian restaurant chain franchise that purveys hamburgers and other quick service restaurant fare. It is based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and was founded in 2004. It had 30 locations in 2013, and opened its first store in the United States in 2015 in Elmwood Village, Buffalo, New York. The company uses sustainably-sourced beef.

This article is actually not in-depth about the company but about its business practices in a specific locale. Next, we also have the other one:

None of that is actually in-depth about the business itself, but about its food products and its concepts, that cannot be significant coverage for what WP:Notability needs. When all we have are few pieces of minor coverage or for its specific trade industry, it shows there's either barely anything about the company itself or the company is actually responsible for what's noticed, either of which is not what an encyclopedia is. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, when have we ever accepted an article that began with "a tasty menu" or a detailed "food menu"? That wouldn't ever satisfy WP:NPOV, WP:Not guide, WP:Now how-to or WP:NOT. Or worse when all of that is next a "unique space" which is subject to question since that's not what an encyclopedia publishes. Also, we must consider the important factors in what WP:GNG actually says: '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]. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It's not excluded under WP:What Wikipedia is not. Tim, anything that had such flashy words such as what their menu offered and what ingredients used, or what methods they use, is clearcut not independent and in fact emphasizes the quoted highlight above: "promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". Also see what WP:GNG says in its "Common circumstances" section:

So, as by this, we couldn't possibly take an article that begins with "[They] have tasty food" since it's not only non-encyclopedic-, but also it's subject to question on one's own individual likings or choices. It's also worth noting that the earlier Keeps themselves either acknowledged visible concerns in the article or that there wasn't enough to make it acceptable yet; as by what WP:GNG says: Articles must be in acceptable condition, not a presumed one. Next, we also have the clear fact it has not only been deleted including by CSD Speedy, but by AfD several years ago. There's been a long time, since that 2014 AfD Keep closure, that the article could've been improved, but it was in fact Speedy Deleted as G11 in our Deletion policy. How could we possibly consider any other alternative but that this would need fundamental rewriting in order to be accepted here? SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to wear me out. The closing editor can decide on the merits of the article and its sources. 4 of the last 5 votes were keep, and a wall of text. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the equivalent of WP:IT'S NOTABLE but what would be the solutions on the listed concerns above or by what policy? SwisterTwister talk 16:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any advertising. All the info comes directly from the sources, which are all reliable mainstream media publications. It's hard to prove notability without including the notable things that journalists are writing about them. The sources are independent, so it meets WP:ORGIND. Coverage is not trivial, so it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage is national (for Canada - Toronto & Montreal, and technically international if you count Buffalo), so it meets WP:AUD.TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the article was created earlier and deleted, and then recreated and kept. You can see the AfD history in the box on the top right. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD discussion for the article resulted in a keep result. North America1000 01:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the preceding comment means about a potential duplicate vote, but Light2021 has been indef blocked so we'd have to ask him on his talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:23, 9 August 2017 (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.
More