Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiquito (restaurant)


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Chiquito (restaurant)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable restuarant chain, fails WP:CORP Jezhotwells (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep A restauraunt chain with 70 locations should have some degree of press coverage to establish notability, I'd think. Can any Wikipedians in the UK dig up anything in offline sources? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seventy branches is pretty big for a British restaurant chain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is about how this article meets the criteria of WP:CORP. Can anyone find sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Try not to make patronising edit summaries. Your nomination statement was pretty vague itself - claiming something is "non-notable" because it doesn't meet a guideline's criteria, without specifying how it doesn't meet those criteria, is not terribly helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CORP says: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I see no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.  If some can be provided then the restaurant chain is notable, if not it should be deleted or merged, if there is any useful content to an article on the parent chain, the Restaurant Group. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep because it "has over 70 restaurants". Common sense here, and if necessary, we can update the suggested guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  10:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article analysing the entry of new US chains into the UK note that Chiquito is a national chain (and notably so). The Belfast Telegraph indicates it is the UK's best known Mexican chain.  At the very least, it could be merged with Restaurant Group as it is one the holdings as indicated by, and . -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let's look at these:
 * citation #1, an article about the launch of three unrelated US chains in the UK, contains one sentence that mentions Chiquito: "While there are some national sit-down restaurant chains, notably Chiquito, as well as smaller operators such as Benito's Hat and Chilango, the UK's Mexican food market remains undeveloped."
 * citation #2, announces a restaurant opening. WP:CORP specifically states that "routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops," are not significant coverage.
 * citation #3, says that Restaurant Group is the owner of "Chiquito Mexican-style grills". The article is about the overall sales of the group as a whole in 2007.
 * citation #4, is about Restaurant Group's sales in 2008. No mention of Chiquito.
 * So there is no significant coverage at all in these sources - thus the article fails to establish notability as per WP:CORP. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As far as I'm concerned, having 70 restaurants makes a place notable. That the Independent refers to them as notable and uses them as a benchmark of sorts is also helpful. Now, is there any reason to doubt the factual accuracy of the statements made (specifically, "70"?) If not, then keep, and move on. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no reliable sources have been provided so far to satisfy WP:CORP. In fact, no RS have been provided to satisfy this assertion of 70 outlets in the UK. The fact that the The Independent states "and notably so" does nothing to satisfy WP:CORP. Can you provide something? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no, I haven't given that much thought. Treating some guideline as a fetish does not strike me as fruitful. We have a restaurant chain in the UK, which is big but not a huge country, and the chain has 70 restaurant. That's enough for me and for some of the other contributors here, it seems. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * At the top of WP:CORP it says "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Alright?  Its not an absolute law.  Read WP:BURO   D r e a m Focus  00:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So why should the guideline be ignored here. Please provide compelling reasons. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the common sense reason isn't obvious to you, I'm probably not going to be able to convince you. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute laws.  A corporation is notable if it has 70 restaurants, just as a book is notable if it sells a million copies.  Some whine about those just being "big numbers", but common sense usually prevails.   D r e a m Focus  00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DF, what is this world coming to, that I would find myself in agreement with you? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I am familiar with: "While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopaedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request."


 * I consider that no good reason has been advanced for ignoring existing guidelines.


 * So why should the guidelines be ignored here? Please provide compelling reasons. If you wish to advance changes to the guidelines, please raise a WP:RfC on the appropriate talk pages, This Afd discussion is based on existing guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the guidelines have to be ignored here then the reason is that described in WP:IAR. Please don't keep asking for explanations of common sense, because that is something that you either have or don't have, not a legalistic concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The keep voters here are not basing their arguments on established consensus. Let's face it, the article fails the WP:GNG plain and simple. It could have 500 restaurants but that doesn't make it pass the GNG. There are reasons we have this guideline. You can't write an article based on the fact that the restaurant opened a new location in Belfast’s Victoria Square even if it does seat 230. The article presents a useful redirect title to Restaurant Group, which can definitely mention that it owns the chain. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I am changing my vote to weak keep based on the Highbeam articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a couple of editors here whose arguments seem to form a consensus. If Dream Focus and I agree on something, it's something. DF, we should do one of those intersection things, so we can see how rare that is. Odie, you could of course argue that DF and I are idiots, or ignorant of policy etc etc. Or you could accept that we disagree, and that maybe we think that there are more ways to skin a cat. BTW, if all else fails, I can throw an acronym at you: IAR. Plain and simple. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are ignorant of policy or that you are idiots. I do think that you are ignoring established policies and guidelines, which is of course acceptable in some or many situations. But I ask you, what would the contents of an article for which we can not find a single reliable source contain? We could write about how the parent company's stock is doing, but we are unable to write anything verifiable about the actual subject. It is for this reason that I recommend it be made into a redirect instead of keeping. If you are still for keeping, I ask you, what will the verifiable contents of the article contain? Please reconsider. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is enough verifiable information available to write a stub, which as any editor should know is perfectly sufficient to retain an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    03:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Whpq, or as a second choice merge and redirect to Restaurant Group, its parent company. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable chain.  Highbeam.com has more articles, google news coverage of british papers is not as thorough as US coverage.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - On a UK-only Google search there are shitloads of hits. Admittedly, many of them are user-submitted reviews to various news websites but I'm currently (albeit slowly) putting a few decent sources into the article. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 14:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment - We've now got firm establishment that there are 68 outlets from the parent company's Annual Report. The media refs include NE England, NW England, SW England and Northern Ireland which justifies a statement that coverage has been national rather than regional. I will keep looking for more refs but I believe notability is demonstrated. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 17:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we now have three restaurant reviews, and an announcement of an opening - of which WP:CORP says: "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops; routine restaurant reviews". We also have promotional blurb from the Restaurant Group annual report 2010, a Reuters report which confirms that the Restaurant Group owns Chiquito, a list of cocktails from the company website. So we have no reliable sources however you paint it. This clearly fails the notability guidelines and should be redirected to the article on the parent company. Notability is not determined by Google hits, it is demonstrated by significant coverage, not restaurant reviews and any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you're absolutely determined to have this article deleted but you've overlooked the following: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" which has been done to compensate for lack of depth. All statements made in the article are now backed up including the one relating to number of outlets which you called into question earlier in the AFD. If you believe that the Bristol Evening Post, York Press, Belfast Telegraph, Liverpool Daily Post, Lancashire Telegraph and Reuters are all unreliable sources then I suggest you raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. As for the corporate annual report and company website ref, primary sources are permitted providing there are secondary sources. Which, obviously, there are. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 19:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't said these are unreliable sources. What I have shown is that the notability guideline for companies or organizations is perfectly clear on these points:


 * Depth of coverage


 * The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.
 * Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:
 * sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
 * the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
 * inclusion in lists of similar organizations,
 * the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
 * routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
 * brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
 * simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
 * routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
 * routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
 * routine restaurant reviews,
 * quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
 * passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
 * Audience
 * The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.
 * WP:IAR has been quoted to over-ride these guidelines, but without any justification whatsoever. No sources have been provided to give any significant coverage of this restaurant chain. Just a few reviews written by hacks who have benefited from a free meal and a couple of passing mentions in reports about the parent group. This project is an encyclopaedia not a trade directory. We have no information about this chain, except its ownership, the number of outlets and its menu. This does not make it notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have another look at WP:IAR and quote us the section which says a "justification" must be provided. Then reflect on what IAR actually means and the irony of demanding a justification for a policy which says "ignore all rules"! Wikipedia is not about endlessly quoting rules and guidelines at each other, but about what would be best for the encyclopaedia and its users. Deleting an article on a relatively well-known restaurant chain just because you claim it doesn't meet a few guidelines is not best for the encyclopaedia and its users. The fact is that you have put your view and others have put theirs. It's up to the closer to make the decision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe ignoring all rules in this case will improve the encyclopedia. *EDIT* IAR doesn't mean Ignore All Logic. It means if reason can be found to ignore a rule then it should be ignored. I don't think IAR should ever be applied without a logical reason to do so. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my previous answer! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2011 (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.