Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronic Tacos


 * 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. I originally closed this as keep but was asked to re-read the discussion on my usertalk. There was clearly other stuff going on with this discussion besides determining notability. In examining the comments which focus on the notability of this topic alone and do not consider the procedural keeps, there is a clear divide between those who feel that the sourcing provided satisfies WP:NCORP and those who believe it does not. This leads to a no consensus outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Chronic Tacos

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional to an extent, Fails WP:GNG Akronowner (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Nom has been blocked as a sock. StarM 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This is an extensive profile of the company.  This is a restaurant review. The article includes criticism of the restaurant: "Needless to say, I had high hopes for Chronic Tacos. Unfortunately, it missed the mark. ... When we approached the counter, we weren't greeted promptly, though an employee was standing behind the counter facing us. ... As we sat down and took the first few bites, I was quickly and surely disappointed."  This is a restaurant review. The article includes criticism of the restaurant: "It should be a match made in heaven — if only the tacos half could get its act together."</li> <li> This is a restaurant review. The reviewer concluded, "Chronic Tacos Mexican Grill is a nice addition to the fast, casual food scene."</li> <li> This is a restaurant review. The reviewer wrote, "I don't pretend to be a connoisseur of Mexican food, but everything we had—grilled fish tacos, carne asada nachos, Sinaloa tortilla chips and salsa, a bowl of eight churro bites—was tasty and affordable. "</li> <li> This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "Impressions: Flashy setting with very loud music; cheerful and accommodating food preparers at the counter; a mix of Mexican specialties on the menu, some more successful than others. ... We had a bit of trouble communicating over the music, a situation we saw repeated with at least one other patron."</li> <li> This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "Whatever your age or inclination, if you like tacos or Mexican food, especially the good kind at a good price, check out Chronic Tacos. And have fun with the soda machine!"</li> <li> This is a restaurant review. The review notes, "Chronic Tacos is an institution in Newport Beach where it began. It is easy to understand why: good food prepared exactly how you want it, reasonable prices and burritos that are half the size of Rhode Island."</li> <li> The article includes history about the restaurant chain: "Randy Wyner and Dan Biello opened the first Chronic Tacos location in Newport Beach, California in 2002. Now, the chain has more than 50 locations throughout the U.S., four in Canada and three in Japan."</li> <li> The article includes history about the restaurant chain: "The original Chronic Tacos was created back in 2001 (same year the Lakers won an NBA title) by Daniel Biello and Randall Wyner in Newport Beach. Turns out the two guys lived in the area and couldn’t find decent Mexican food with large portions and fresh salsa."</li> <li> The article notes: "Chronic Tacos franchisees already include Jason Acuna from MTV's "Jackass" and Paul Walker's brother, Caleb Walker."</li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chronic Tacos to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.144.26 (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I posted about this comment at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so the community can review. Cunard (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who has asked you for money? Does this matter have any relevance to User:Jotun-la, who has written this page? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was presumably the AfD initiator,, who has previously been accused of extortion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The General Notability Guidelines have clearly been met.  D r e a m Focus  11:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets the GNG guidelines. AfD initiator has previously been accused of extortion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: clearly meets WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. Having reliable sources alone does not make it notabale if the content is not significant. The content of the article is all trivial information. Jerm (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Third party independent restaurant reviews are not trivial. Reviews are one of the main ways we determine notability for books, movies and other things. There are a bunch of reviews in the above list. Plus other types of coverage. -- Green  C  18:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Like an author of a news article reviewing how the food tastes good at his/her local Chronic Tacos? I Hope you're not referring to that kind of review because that's pretty much all of the "reviews" in many of these sources provided above are like. Jerm (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We must not be reading the same reviews. User:Cunard was kind enough to include quotes from the reviews. Search this page for "Needless to say, I had high hopes for Chronic Tacos. Unfortunately, it missed the mark". More like that. Did you read them? I can't imagine you did if you characterize scathing reviews like that as "how good the food tastes". But either way, it's not like you have to agree with the review, or the review needs to be negative to be authentic. -- Green  C  21:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading at reference #16 because every source was practically discussing the same thing, a local chain and a brief history on how the company started. Maybe reference #11 might has some info, IDK. I assume Cunard just grabbed these sources from web.archive.org and inserted quotes next to them, but I encourage you and those who already inserted their votes to actually read them. Maybe I missed something while reading. Jerm (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Whether or not there was an extortion attempt notwithstanding, the deep dive into the sources done by Cunard is well-appreciated. I have to disagree with Jerm, as that guideline applies to the quality of sourcing, not the quality of the article's content, and it beggars belief that legitimate restaurant reviews are the sort of routine coverage that CORPDEPTH is intended to address. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're wrong per WP:CORPDEPTH:
 * And I actually went through the sources. All they talk about is the types a food that's being sold from the menu, prices, location, maybe a local chain being opened up at some town, number of employees of a local chain depending on the source. The only thing that seemed notable is who started it and where but that's really it. Yeah, there are a lot of sources provided above but with insignificant info. Yeah, still trivial info per WP:CORPDEPTH/Examples of trivial coverage. Jerm (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And I actually went through the sources. All they talk about is the types a food that's being sold from the menu, prices, location, maybe a local chain being opened up at some town, number of employees of a local chain depending on the source. The only thing that seemed notable is who started it and where but that's really it. Yeah, there are a lot of sources provided above but with insignificant info. Yeah, still trivial info per WP:CORPDEPTH/Examples of trivial coverage. Jerm (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Looking through the sources provided by Cunard they all seem to be local stories, from local news outlets, about individual locations opening or closing. Which is pretty run of the mill, trivial, and fails WP:NORG. Literally every restaurant chain gets the same exact kind of coverage and they don't all deserve articles because of it. An article that is just a list of local locations with closing dates or whatever isn't really encyclopedic and I see nothing else that is in-depth about the company itself from any of the references he provided. Otherwise, if someone can provide WP:THREE that do I'll probably change my vote. Until then though, there's nothing about this that passes WP:NORG from what I can tell. Not to mention the article is clearly written by a COI editor to sound like an advert. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD initiator has a strong COI of it's own. Paid for getting this article deleted?!  Mario Jump  83!  01:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong? So I assume that's not confirmed. Even if that were true, being paid to have an article deleted is actually irrelevant because that's not what determines the deletion of an article. Jerm (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * AFD initiator has blocked for socking, so it's now no longer theoretical. That said, AFAIK there was never any suggestion anyone was paying them for deletion. The suggestion was they were asking for payment to stop deletion. Precisely what is going on is still unclear at least publicly. One common suggestion is a connection between the AFD initiator and the creator although if that's the case so far they've avoided detection and perhaps we'll never know for sure. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable per Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin since there are good faith delete votes, so I won't close this. But note that nom has been sock blocked.      <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">StarM</b> 15:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE and the sources found. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE has no bearing on the matter if the article is already in the deletion process, and WP:HEY is neither policy nor guideline. Jerm (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per arguments by Cunard. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the RfC at WP:N, GNG is *not* the applicable guideline to examining sources to establish notability, it is NCORP. As everyone is citing Cunards references as being sufficient, note that Cunard ignores NCORP and provides reasoning from GNG. For example, Cunard's first reference from fesmag is based *entirely* on information provided by the company and their CEO. It is a classic advertorial and fails WP:ORGIND. Lots of the others are reviews of individual restaurants and not an in-depth article on *the company* which is what is required to establish notability - use reviews of individual restaurants if you want an article on an individual restaurant. If Cunard or anyone else believes that there are at least two references that meet the NCORP guidelines, post the links here and lets take a look. As it is, topic fails WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP after looking at the sources. Reviews of different locations of the same restaurant does not seem to be independent to me. Bigpencils (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Independent means independent of the subject. If they are from one publication arguably they could be regarded as one source but there are several publications here. Peter James (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, also must contain "Independent content" in order to count towards establishing notability, i.e. original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. See WP:ORGIND. We need more than "echo chamber" articles that simply repeat the information put out by the company. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep: The nominator has been blocked and there are indications of attempts at financial gain. As with another recent AfD I feel WP needs to neutralise gaming by reputation management commerce. AllyD (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the general notability guidelines. (Creativecreatr (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Hey, the GNG is not the applicable guideline for determining whether sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. That's NCORP. So ... wwhich references are you saying meet NCORP? Post links below so we can see. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you study the Afd discussion and also go through the page, you will see that there are other guidelines that has been met too. Since GNG has already been met the page should be kept.(Creativecreatr (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
 * The only guideline that matters is NCORP since the topic article is about a company/organization. Can you show it passes NCORP? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that GNG doesn't apply if there is a relevant SNG. Based on recent AFDs, consensus is now that GNG is the main guideline. Peter James (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not according to the latest RfC, at WP:N, the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP to determining whether references meet the criteria for establishing notability. It is a stricter guideline that vanilla GNG. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That RFC never ended, just a lot of people disagreeing and arguing until most just gave up bothering with the discussion. Same as always basically.  The current rules listed saying something is notable if it passes either the GNG or a subject specific deadline, one or the other, you don't need both.  Unless you find consensus to change that at WP:NOTABILITY, doesn't matter what is said elsewhere.   D r e a m Focus  18:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to check again. The RfC is in the process of ending (as of earlier today) and the consensus is as I've said above. And it will result in changes at WP:N. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.