Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Farooj Fresh


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Al Farooj Fresh

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Chain of 6 fast food restaurants in the UAE. Um, that appears to be it. Oh, article is copyvio from a couple of sources, but my report on ANI about active copyvio got ignored amidst the usual dramamongering. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "That appears to be it" ?. That's a bit misleading, don't you think ?. There's much more in the article than that and there were 8 branches and that was in 2006. The Al Farooj Fresh establishment, for your information, is an International brand with 17 branches worldwide as of March 2009, with 14 in the UAE itself. And also, a brand's notability is not highlighted by the no of branches under it's banner. --Roaring Siren (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going by the official website which states 8 restaurants (and which I incorrectly recalled as 6). I have edited the nomination. I am sure people will read the article itself before expressing their opinions here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Currently neutral Comment. I am associated with this article after Dc listed it for speedy deletion and RS appealed for a WP:3O which wasn't given as there was no content dispute requiring a third opinon. This is my first comment at AfD so I've had a good look at the requirements and the sources available. There are fairly regional news websites that all seem to repeat a press release, which would suggest it's non-notable, but there is a story here. It's also listed at Business Week although I'm not sure what WP:CORP feels about that source. The fact it's involved with the "Mohammad Bin Rashid Establishment for Young Business Leaders" might help its notability. I'd suggest Roaring Siren spends a while trying to find some better sources and improves the article, it might have WP:POTENTIAL, but as it is it should be deleted. Bigger digger (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I see it's tagged for rescue so I'll hold off on my opinion but will note that the two references given both read like press releases and one is not in-depth by any means and could be argued to be trivial. That's what I'll be looking at as far as notability, significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources per WP:CORP. Drawn Some (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep and expand and further source per WP:POTENTIAL and WP:CLEANUP. Meets the WP:GNG per AME info, Gulfnews, Entepreneur, Zawya, Trade Arabia, Arab Franchise Magazine, and the other results of a simple Google News search. Wikipedia always has room for articles about fast food franchises as long as they get the press... and this one has. It ain't McDonalds, Wendys, or Burger King, but bless 'em for stepping into the future.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing press with press releases. This one has "Source : www.alislamifoods.com" at the bottom. This one has the PR departments contact info and "press release 2008" at the bottom. This press release is the source of at least two of your links above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep At the moment, even if the article is relatively short it's notability has been established. There is a provision for articles that are too short and that's called a WP:STUB. And a look at the article would make it clear that the article is not too short either. Given that the article has been nominated for deletion 3 times,I had a look at WP:CORP and couldn't find any criterion Al Farooj failed, so it'd be helpful if you could point that out . --Roaring Siren (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick addition to the list, AFF has also been covered by USA Today. --Roaring Siren (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Partial reprint from press release - see my response to MQS. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * USA Today is a published third party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with a staff and editorial oversite, which allows presumption that whatever they used from Trade Arabia was properly vetted for its own factual accuracy before they offered it as news and information. That they used a press release as the basis of a report becomes moot if they have done their homework to ensure its accuracy before offering it, and as a reliable source, we may presume they did just that... also underscoring the notability... as they do not have a reputation for reprinting unchecked and baseless rumour as might a tabloid. Move over MacDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, Arbies, Jack in the Box, and all you others... Wikipedia has room for another fast food franchise. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have an interesting view of how newsmedia work. Regardless, your argument is not all supported by WP:RS. Did you really intend to compare this 18 location fast food restaurant to the ones you mention? I don't think the comparison helps your cause. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This press release repetition is my current problem as well. A Google search or GNews search seems to indicate sufficient sources, but except for the two I noted above they are simple hacks of a single press release. In other words, there is essentially one news item, self-published and then copied, which seems to be the main establishment of notability, which is not sufficient. Roaring Siren, if it is notable, there will be other news items on it other than the rehash of a 2008 press release. I think this subject might be notable, but I can't find anything to prove it, and I think if this page is to stay you need to bring something more to the table. Bigger digger (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one reason the bulk of the articles are reproduction of two or three press releases could be that given the company is based in the Middle East,any "unofficial" reports/reviews about the company would be in Arabic. I came up with one blog review,another foodie blog and a listing on a community website, and needless to say, they are all in English. Articles establishing the notability might be present in Arabic newspapers and finding such reports online might pose a problem,if such articles have been uploaded online at all. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Finding English-language sources for verification is often a problem for articles which deal with people or companies that are not well-known in English speaking countries. It can be an unfair barrier for inclusion, but this is the English-language Wikipedia after all. Regardless, press releases are not considered to be reliable sources for obvious reasons and cannot be used as substitutes for actual press coverage. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: In addressing concerns that a few of the earlier sources proffered per WP:POTENTIAL were simply reprints of a press release, I just spent a several hours going through the article per WP:AFTER and WP:CLEANUP. It has been expanded, rewritten, and sourced to multiple reliable sources so as to meet the WP:GNG, and thus pass WP:N. There are not dozens and dozens of sources, as I do not read Arabic, but in the spirit of the noble work of WP:CSB, the significant coverage in multilple reliable sources allows the article to meet the inclusion requirements of the GNG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the press release that is copied verbatim to the source that you use as a reference six times in the article. Here, direct from the corporate website, is the press release copied in part to another of your references. It isn't worth the investment of my time to look closely at the rest of the sources, but I think you see my point. This is a chain of 18 fast food restaurants. I don't believe it is notable but it isn't worth the time and aggravation required to deal with this. I am probably going to stop participating in AfDs entirely, since lately the many of arguments seem to have little to do with guidelines, policy, or common sense. Please enjoy your meal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Good catch on the AME info press release. I do not know how I could let that get by me and I appreciate your sharp eye. I have removed it as an improper source. But with the newer sources, the article has improved and "copyvio" has been addressed since your nomination. I feel that Business Week, Gulf News (1), Arabian Business, Gulf News (2), SME Awards, Al Bawaba (1), Khaleej Times, and Trade Arabia may be considered as WP:RS in meeting WP:GNG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a user-submitted investment profile. The second link is identical to here, reads like a press release, and its author works for a St. Louis-based PR firm. The third link is a release from here. Fourth link is copied from the official website. Your fifth link is an award sponsored by one of the chief investors of this company, and is not only unrelated to this fast food chain but is hosted on a site dedicated to the award. Sixth link is another press release. Seventh link is an unrelated venture by the same company. And the eighth link is one of the press releases we've already covered. Save for the two irrelevant links, all of these were written by a press agent in the employ of Al Islami Foods. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of those points are valid, but the second version of the Gulf News article states that it is copyright Gulf News, so the reprint isn't a concern. Similarly, Suzanne Fenton is listed as a staff reporter, and has quite a few articles with her byline - unless I'm missing something (which is always possible), the Suzanne Fenton who works for a PR company may well be a different person. - Bilby (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment, despite the fact that there are Arabic sources (which we couldn't come up with), we have still managed to find numerous sources in English reporting on AFF, even if most of them are reproductions of 3 press releases, still they do pass WP:RS and even USA Today has reported on it. Now doesn't that speak volumes on the notability issue ?. I'm sure most of those who had read the article are convinced the article is notable, and only if we can keep it on wikipedia will the possibility of any further editing by a Wikipedian able to read Arabic. --Roaring Siren (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That USA Today link is just an automatic aggregation of this TradeArabia article, which is dealt with above. There are lots of single-digit-unit franchise chains in English-speaking countries that do not and should not have Wikipedia articles, because we have no independent commentary in reliable sources to use to write articles. How is this franchise different, other than that it is based in non-English-speaking countries? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The important thing here is it has been covered by an American newspaper, even if the source is from Trade Arabia. Had the subject been not notable would it have been covered in a reputed foreign newspaper ?. And to answer your other query, firstly Al Farooj Fresh is an International brand. And secondly, it is NOT a single-digit-unit franchise chain.--Roaring Siren (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been "covered by an American newspaper". The website of an American newspaper has listed the tradearabia press release in its aggregated content about Oman. Whether AFF is international, or how many chains it has, takes a back seat to the coverage it has received, and I'm still not sure that this notability has been established. Bigger digger (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * However, to show that I am trying to find sources that I might be happy with, I'll point you in the direction of this blog. Before you all shoot me down, it is tagged by the author, a journalist, as appearing in Executive Magazine and a search on that site suggests that it's hidden behind a pay wall. There are quite a few leaps of logic required there, but if I can find that there must be other, more convincing, articles out there. Bigger digger (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline requires "significant coverage" of the subject. In the piece you found, the company is merely named in a list of franchise operations owned by the parent company. There is no logical reason to assume that other, better sources exist because of this trivial mention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! I know! I'm just trying to offer some positive encouragement. Bigger digger (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the copyvio issues should be fixed now, which leaves notability. Most of the sources don't speak to notability, being verbatim copies of press releases, primary sources, trivial coverage or unrelated to the article itself. (Not that they're bad sources - just that they don't relate to notability). However, two are ok - Gulf News, which has a byline, and the coverage in Business Middle East is short but non-trivial. They're also big enough (just) so that I think it is reasonable to expect coverage in non-English sources, although I'd feel better if I could see some. - Bilby (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could someone be good enough to remove this source which is used as a reference three times? It is also a press release, as found here (please read the section at bottom or download the PDF version). References currently numbered 6 & 8 have previously been identified as press releases and should also be removed. Additionally, links to press releases don't belong in the external links section, per WP:EL. I would rather not edit the article myself at this point. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look and removed the external links (the official website made sense, but the others were unnecessary). However, there's nothing stopping press releases being used, as they can count as reliable sources (given that they need to be treated as primary sources, with all the cautions that this entails). In this case they were being used to support uncontroversial statements about the company, so they should be ok. - Bilby (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, seems notable enough. We need to watch for WP:CSB issues. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Even if not notable, its still a brand.   A M M A R   19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I added some wikiprojects to the talk page and approached some current editors listed at Category :Translators ar-en in an attempt to find some Arabic sources to try to establish verifiability. I didn't encourage them to vote here, but equally I guess this could be viewed as WP:CANVASSING. Ammar is one of the editors I contacted. My bad. Bigger digger (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the message you left and, yes, I view it as canvassing. I think the only thing that this AfD is missing is blatant sockpuppetry, but there's still a little time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep due to improvements made since nomination. They are enough to persuade me that there is something valid here.  I concede however that I am not an expert of overseas fast food, so I am somewhat assuming good faith here.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this article only just fails to make notabililty as noted by Dc. However, in the last week I've seen a number of editors try to improve this article and argue for its inclusion. I've tried to get editors with Arabic language skills to find some sources but this seems to be a slow process on their part. I successfully rescued Aladdin's Eatery because it was based in the US and had plenty of English-language sources, despite not being very different from AFF. I think that there is a need to counter some of the systemic bias (first time I'd seen that Stifle, it's taught me a lot, thanks) inherent in an English-language encyclopedia trying to cover the globe and it's to be expected that sources in Lebanese are harder to come by. I would suggest no consensus, and in a month's time I'll put this up for AfD myself if these sources haven't appeared. Note If the closer does delete, please userify to User:Bigger digger/Al Farooj Fresh. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Most of the sources seem to be press releases, which is unfortunate - but nevertheless the relatively wide scope of coverage is, I think, grounds for notability. More independent, reliable sources would definitely be a good idea, though. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2009 (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.