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 defaulting to keep. Sources have been presented, but there is no consensus on whether they're enough to clear notability. ansh666 22:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steak Escape (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)

This article has existed since September 1, 2006. Throughout the article's history, it would appear it has had a WP:CORPDEPTH problem. While from a simple google search for "Steak Escape" it is manifestly obvious there are many franchise outlets across the United States, and even internationally, this 1982 establishment appears not to have been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. The references in this article, as it currently stands, are from the company's own website, and PR Newswire, which while a respected publisher of press releases is still a publisher of press releases. The reference I added seems anomalous in this context. This article has been nominated for speedy deletion. To my mind, I think a WP:AFD discussion would be a better alternative, given the longevity of the article and the apparent ubiquitousness of the franchise. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Gbooks shows this as a potential source, and we need to remember that for a company foudned in 1982 there are likely to be source materials that are not, and never were, online. The fact that the article was proposed for speedy by one of the editors who, from my view of AfD, is one of the strongest "companies should not have pages" proponents is not something I would consider relevant to an AfD discussion on the subject (one way or another). The bottom line here is that I believe there's just enough, bearing in mind the extremely high liklihood of additional offline sources, to squeak past WP:GNG, and the article is not promotional in nature. TLDR: Likely GNG pass and ahe encyclopedia would not be improved by a deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done enough research to offer an opinion on notability, but did want to address this source. First, it's not a book, per-se. It looks like a bunch of issues of a trade magazine bound up for library stacks. I'm not sure, but I think it's what's now called Restaurant Business Online. So, what we've got here is a search hit, with no useful context, in a niche industry publication. That's not what we base WP:N on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no good references currently, we don't even have the corporate-directory information such as number of locations. [1] has some of this information, but isn't acceptable as a reference. It might be a notable topic, but the article would need to be re-written with entirely new sources (which I can't find) to demonstrate that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bushranger; a news / book search shows some promising leads. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES: "We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable". An article needs to be a sourced condition or else it would simply a still Unsourced article. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well quite, but in this case the "news" link is at the top of this AfD, for anyone to click on and take a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I added a few sources. Some are paywalled, but with the number of locations and international scope info that can be sourced, this should pass notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I added some more coverage. The QSR article about spreading into the Middle East has more info about their master distributors and international reach. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QSR would not be independent coverage from its business trade, as WP:CORP clearly says these are unacceptable: whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. [Unacceptable sources]: press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material which is substantially based on a press release; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization. We have no article on QSR Magazine and so there's not even evidence anyone has established the magazine's own article before using it as a source. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A surprising lack of sources for a fairly large chain that has been around for decades. I looked at gBooks, and the source cited by Bushranger - one sentence in a business magazine - is about the best there is, rest are mere mentions (granted, gBooks returns different results to different users as it randomly decided which books/pages ot search.) A search of proquest news archive looks no better, several press releases even on the first page of the search, always a bad sign. The sole INDEPTH I found is a 2006 article: Here's the BEEF ; No brotherly love between chains vying to be cheesesteak king,. Unfortunately, it's from this chain's hometown newspaper, Columbus Dispatch. There isa smattering of articles in other local papers that ran when someone opened a local branch: Visalia, CA; Denver; Memphis; Charlotte, a few others, most not available in full, merely snippets, and the ones that are very routine,more like events listings. That's all I'm seeing. ON the other hand, it's a good size chain, and I am not very familiar with the usual standards for keep/delete on restaurant chains.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the actual concern and policy basis here is WP:Not promotion and WP:Not guidebook, both basic policies, and they clearly say Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Articles are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts and this is what the article is on every level. Notability is only gauging possible article chances, but policy is guaranteed enforcement of encyclopedia values. SwisterTwister talk 16:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD per a source review, although on a weak level, but nevertheless, meets the criteria. Below is another paywalled source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"growing chain" is business-speak for what we would call not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The book source directly above was published in 1997, twenty years ago. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep WP:ORGSIG is questionable. Specifically "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." The company may have been around for a long while and may have several franchisees, but there's been no impact. The weak sources compound the issue per Northamerica1000. However, TimTempleton does make a good point with two articles that discuss the actual company. Operator873^CONNECT 00:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While Tim Templeton makes a persuasive argument, I don't think that the QSR article puts it over the bar of notability. In addition, while I don't find it overly promotional, I do find it as little more than a company brochure, with a list routine coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:18, 30 November 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.