Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camile (restaurant chain)


 * 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The result was keep -- withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Camile (restaurant chain)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Restaurant chain does not meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. With only one delete !vote, there is little chance of this succeeding. And I'd prefer this didn't get dragged further into Stalwart111's crusade against HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. In a very quick WP:BEFORE exercise, I found (and have added) sources from multiple independent reliable sources. Which would seem to support WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV requirements. Including in Irish and UK national newspapers. And some international outlets. Like Forbes. See for example coverage in: Irish Times, Irish Independent , RTÉ News , Sunday Times (UK) , and elsewhere . I'm not sure if the nominator's own WP:BEFORE exercise identified these sources but, while all the sources in the article/stub itself were primary, there would seem to be more than sufficient coverage elsewhere to demonstrate notability. Guliolopez (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple reliable sources, per Guliolopez. Alan Islas (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – Some sources likely derive from press releases, but not necessarily all. Plus, the articles are bylined and published by reliable sources. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH overall. North America1000 17:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
 * I note that none of the Keep !voters have mentioned WP:ORGIND in their !votes. This is important as ORGIND rules out (for the purposes of establishing notability) anything that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references meet the criteria. They are either repeating information on the website or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company and their published financial details - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.
 * While Northamerica1000 admits that some sources likely derive from press releases, none have been specifically identified as meeting CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND as required. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - that some editors interpret WP:NCORP in such as way as to exclude basically every form of common-practice business journalism doesn't make it sensible to do so. For the record, WP:ORGIND says nothing about interviews, and there's no reason it would; an interview of a subject by an independent journalist is made independent by the independence of that journalist. The person didn't interview themselves, decide what information to include, and exclude anything critical. They were asked questions, answered them, and then an independent person decided what that coverage would include. What WP:NCORP does say about interviews it says in the section about secondary sources (further into the guideline) and it simply says that interviews are frequently encountered as primary sources. It doesn't say that they cannot also be encountered as secondary, independent sources but of course they can.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closer This user is making their !vote in bad faith and has only made this !vote because they disagree with the interpretation of NCORP and are trying to make a point. See the following debate.  HighKing++ 18:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was in the AFD log and I contribute to AFD all the time. You should probably address your disruptive behaviour before trying to bludgeon more discussions.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The history of your edits and personal attacks over the past two days will show the true picture.  HighKing++ 13:27, 3 September 2021 (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.