Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck-A-Rama


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 01:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Chuck-A-Rama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

very small restaurant chain with no substntial references for ntoability-- just notices and PR  DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, in bylined news articles and in books. Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. This restaurant was founded in 1966, so it's likely that additional offline sources are available. North America1000 15:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "A Research Study of Chuck-A-Rama's Customers, Food, and Services". Brigham Young University. 1983. (Full study)
 * Phillips, Valerie (September 6, 2006) "The choice is yours ... Chuck-A-Rama celebrates its 40th anniversary today". Deseret News.
 * (Longer than the AP article)
 * Phillips, Valerie (September 6, 2006) "The choice is yours ... Chuck-A-Rama celebrates its 40th anniversary today". Deseret News.
 * (Longer than the AP article)
 * Phillips, Valerie (September 6, 2006) "The choice is yours ... Chuck-A-Rama celebrates its 40th anniversary today". Deseret News.
 * (Longer than the AP article)
 * Delete -- FFS, a ten-store all you can eat brand? What's new? What's notable? I do notice that coffee isn't on the menu. That would be interesting, but no one mentioned it. Rhadow (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – The number of stores a restaurant chain runs has nothing to do with notability whatsoever. Notability is by and in large determined by notability guidelines such as WP:N, rather than subjective opinion. North America1000 18:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The BYU study is a student paper; the Gill book has only a paragraph making fun of its name; the Deseret News/AP item is about an utterly trivial incident about how much fooda particular couple was entitled to eat at the buffet in one of their restaurants; the others are press releases/ I would take the listing of references during this argument more seriously if there was any indication they had been screened for being substantial and reliable.  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote from the nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 01:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – Go ahead and delete the article then. All we need is a couple more "not notable" drive-by !votes and it will be sealed. It's curious that some users seem to be against restaurant- and company-related articles from the start, even resorting to !voting twice to promote deletion. DGG just "happened" upon this article shortly after I performed some edits to it, and is eager to delete all of the sudden, despite having never been involved in the article before. Automatically agreeing with one's buddy is clear favoritism, but there's no policy against favoritism. As such, it's not really important. Check out the revision history to see what's what: two against one: ST and DGG against NA = delete, right? Ugly at best, and potential off-wiki canvassing at worst. This discourages editors from improving articles, and it is also creepy. The sources I provided above are examples; more are available. The solution appears to be for me to stop editing articles that DGG and ST don't like; then they won't be immediately nominated for deletion. Perhaps some Wikipedians just want all company-related articles to be ridden from the encyclopedia. I don't forsee much reason to care at this point; if it's deleted, then it will just be another erasure of American history. While we're at it, be sure to nominate Microsoft for deletion; it's sourced from press releases, routine coverage, and churnalism. This is actually quite true, see Microsoft for starters. Happy holidays, and godspeed with the anti-company crusade. North America1000 01:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * let's be realistic--at least half the time I agree with your deletion nominations. There are some fields that are particularly prone to promotionalism, and restaurants are among them, because the nature of the content is inherently promotional, and the nature of the sources tends to be that way also. I have gradually learned which restaurant chains are actually considered important, and I am learning not to  nominate them. If I do, other people join the discussion,and the consensus decides to keep them. I have never imagined I could always tell  rightly what the consensus will be at AfD--or anywhere else in WP. If I got upset when it was different than I thought, I would have left long ago.   DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG just "happened" upon this article shortly after I performed some edits to it, and is eager to delete all of the sudden, despite having never been involved in the article before. … The solution appears to be for me to stop editing articles that DGG and ST don't like; then they won't be immediately nominated for deletion. –, I've encountered this pattern of editing before. It is very unpleasant and makes people who are targeted very disinclined to edit the encyclopedia. , please refrain from "creating irritation, annoyance or distress" or causing "disruption to [Northamerica1000's] enjoyment of editing" (WP:HOUNDING). Cunard (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, Sources say it is a fifty year old chain of ten in Idaho with regional to international coverage. Valoem talk contrib 17:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete We do not have the sustained coverage that we need to show notability. It is a splattering of coverage that is just routine for a restaurant, nothing to show exceptionality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000. This 50-year-old company has received sustained coverage of nearly a decade (2004 to 2016) based on Northamerica1000's sources. This 2006 article, titled "Chuck-A-Rama celebrates 40th", notes: "Forty years ago, Alva Greene and his two sons-in-law were mesmerized by the TV series 'Rawhide.' But for Greene, the star of the show wasn't Clint Eastwood, it was the chuck wagon. Like many restaurateurs in the '60s, Greene, a former J.C. Penney manager, was attracted to the concept of a mobile kitchen that prepares food for cowboys working on a cattle drive. That became the impetus for his family business, Chuck-A-Rama Buffet Restaurants Inc., which opened its first restaurant in Salt Lake City at 744 E. 400 South on Sept. 6, 1966." A routine article would not discuss a company's history in such level of detail. This 2016 article, titled "Chuck-a-Rama celebrates 50 years of business", discusses the company's history in detail. Here is a quote: "When his father, Don Moss, started the business with partner Wayne Chamberlin, they tried to get a bank loan to start a second location. The bank turned them down, telling them issuing loans for a restaurant was as risky as giving out a loan for a Corvette or a motorcycle. Don Moss and Chamberlin never used a bank for another loan." A routine article would not discuss a company's history in such level of detail. That a restaurant has been in business for 50 years is significant. Cunard (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete on everything both WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy, which say:
 * Source 1 above is a travel guide on guide suggestions
 * Source 2 and 8 is a general WP:Not news story
 * Source 3 is an ordinary research study, common every year for numerous businesses
 * Source 4 is a WP:Notguide again
 * Source 5, 6 and 7 is a general business announcement
 * Source 9 is as the book itself shows, a travel guide of someone's travels
 * To quote the relevant policy parts now:
 * WP:Not guide: Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like....the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
 * WP:Not advocate: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise
 * WP:Not news: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia
 * From WP:CORP quoted above: 'Except'' press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material which is substantially based on a press release; self-published materials; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people"
 * WP:GNG: "For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, are not considered independent'''.
 * It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
 * Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter

To also analyze the latest sources: We can't be expected to accept materials that is still indirectly by the subject since the easiest Notability guideline GBG itself says independence is key here, and coverage on that independence is also required. 2 votes based their Keep on GNG, yet I quoted exactly what it said in highlights above. As WP:Articles for deletion says, we analyze sources and an article in what they say, including citing whatever relevant guideline and policy said what. A claim above says "A restaurant in business for 50 years is significant" is easily applicable for any company and this is not a Notability criteria at all, as coverage is what matters here, not age claims. This is equally as thin as any company with a strong presence in a particular community, and including that would be WP:Indiscriminate collection of information. Deletion is based on policy which is a necessity whereas Notability is a secondary possibility of an article's chances, not a guarantee and its lead states this: A topic is presumed notable. SwisterTwister  talk  06:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Deletion policy: pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject). Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. (De-spamming attempts here, here a d here; if 3 different edits couldn't make an impact, that's a sign WP:Deletion policy covers it)
 * "Greene....former J.C. Penney manager, ....attracted to...concept of a mobile kitchen....prepares food for cowboys working on a cattle drive....became the impetus for his family business" (see WP:GNG#Independent: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it)
 * "When father, Don Moss, started....business with partner Wayne Chamberlin....tried to get....bank loan to start....second location" (same as above)
 * Comment "A routine article would not discuss the subject in such a level of detail" actually, a routine promotional article will generally make use of the company's press releases to put in whatever personal detail about the founder's motivations he wants to include.   Both of the two articles  mentions isarehonest enough to put the material in quotation marks. Actually reading the references shows the true nature.  DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- coverage is routine or in passing. For example, the book offered above as a source mostly says:
 * "There's not much to say about Chuck-A-Rama..."
 * Such coverage does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing special about a typical spam about some restaurant company, adds no value so there's no use in keeping it Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2017 (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.