Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Subs


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Cousins Subs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am not impressed by this article on this medium company - I think it falls on the wrong side of notable, failing WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to regional media and is narrow, relying on a lot of marketing/PR materials. The article is clearly promotional (contributors include a bunch of WP:SPAs including a certain User:Cousinssubs and while we could clean it up to a factual stub-like entry, the notability issue still remain. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Not every company is going to be Subway or Jimmy John's. Well-known regional sandwich chain and not seeing how it violates YP. Also the COI's contribs can be easily rectified with a simple SOFIXIT.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "How it violates WP" - please read WP:N. The entry on this company IMHO violates this policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an insignificant regional chain and reads like a franchise ad:
 * "The company's products mainly utilize Wisconsin-sourced products, including Wisconsin cheesees, along with meat products from locally-based Badger Ham, Klement's and Johnsonville Foods, along with Best Maid cookies and soft drinks from Sprecher!"
 * Additional puffed up language includes "focus on quality" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying it it needs cleanup, not something AfD is for. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By "insignificant chain" I mean non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. AfD is not for cleanup, so if there is a promotional tone that needs to be fixed with editing, not deletion. Potential sources:   , , , , ,   ,  , and more indicate there is enough here to pass WP:GNG. Companies are not evil and their Wikipedia pages are not automatically promotion. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources are WP:SPIP, such as HTR bearing this disclaimer: The Chamber of Manitowoc County, with its publishing of The Chamber Notebook, provides space for chamber members to present information about their business. The publishing of this information is not intended to show preference for that business by The Chamber.
 * These sources generally do not meet WP:AUD / SPIP. BizJournals, for example, is best known for republishing press release. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per The Bushranger.  Royal broil  21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Bushranger. No one is trying to delete Culver's, why should Cousins be deleted? Seems to be in need of cleanup, not deletion. Evanash24 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:KEEPPER are poor arguments. Closing admin will hopefully remember AfDs are not a vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to fail GNG and WP:NCORP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not only must references be published by reliable third party sources (which is the bit most reviewers tend to focus on), the references must also be "intellectually independent" and contain in-depth information on the company. References that regurgitate company announcements or interviews or quotations without any independent analysis or opinion do *not* meet the criteria for establishing notability (although might very well meet the "reliability" requirement and include some of the information from the reference in the article). The references in the article and those put forward by fail (mainly) WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as follows:
 * This htrnews.com article is derived from this press release and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The article itself also acknowledges the "author" as "By Press Releasee". In addition, there is no in-depth information in the article on the company itself and therefore also fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This onmilwaukee.com article is substantially derived from this press release and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This other onmilwaukee.com article is also derived from a Press Release and the article itself also acknowledges the "author" as "By Press Releasee". Is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This jsonline.com article is based on financial data produced by the company, information provided by the company and/or their officers including quotations from the VP marketing and the article does not contain any independent opinion or analysis. Reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This htrnews.com article is not intellectually independent as it relies on an interview with new franchisees. Reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
 * This gmtoday.com article is entirely based on an interview with the CEO and president of the company and has published a verbatim transcript with no independent opinion and/or analysis. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * this bizjournals.com article is also entirely based on an interview with the CEO and president with no independent opinion or analysis. It is also not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This next omnilwaukee.com article is based on this press release and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The article itself also acknowledges the "author" as "By Press Releasee".
 * this fox6now.com article is based on a company announcement, acknowledges the CEO and president as the source of the information and contains no indepth information. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This next jsonline.com article is based on this press release and uses information provided by the company with no independent analysis or opinion, therefore not intellectually independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This next jsonline.com article is essentially an article and profile on the CEO, contains no independent analysis or opinion, is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This cbs58.com article is based on an announcement of a van turned into a mobile shop by the VP of Marketing including a quotations. There is no independent opinion or analysis and the article does not contain any in-depth information on the company. Reference fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * This nrn.com article is based on a company announcement made by the CEO (also reported here) that they were going to rebrand. The articles contain no independent analysis or opinion and are not intellectually independent. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Finally, this bizjournals.com article is entirely based on a company announcement - the same announcement is also covered in this biztimes.com article, this omnilwaukee.com article (credited to a Press Release) and this qsrmagazine.com article (also credited to a press release) and many others. Reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * I'm happy to revisit my !vote if two references can be found that are intellectually independent. But for now, while the references demonstrate an effective marketing department, they clearly do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 16:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll note I'm very uncomfortable with the "it's an interview, it doesn't count" position (not just here, in general). It means somebody found it notable enough to cover, still. The "it's based on a press release" argument fails that, for me, even harder. The news source covered it; found it worthy of covering. There's a position in between primary and "intellectually independent" sources that, IMHO, should count torwards notability (secondary) but not to citing exceptional claims (primary), and I think a lot of babies get thrown out in the bathwater in that regard. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting a press release essentially reprinted is easy while someone taking the time to cover the company properly means a lot more. So there'd atleast need to be a lot more of that to mean the same as one proper piece of coverage. Also, perhaps an interview in the NYtimes means something, but lot of random people get interviewed in lower-tier newspapers who are not notable - pumpkin farmer with the largest pumpkin sort of thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC) If, say, there's a lot of text on the person apart from the interview in the same article then i'm lenient i'd count it, even though a lot of it will be based on the interview. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERVIEW discusses some problems with interviews. Yes, it is a good sign someone is interested in the topic, but they are still half-self-published as they offer the subject's opinion with little to no editorial oversight. And you can't be seriously saying that reprinting/rewriting press releases gives any air of notability, can you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 23 November 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.