Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorditas Doña Tota


 * 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 redirect to FEMSA. And merge Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Gorditas Doña Tota

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "more than 200 branches; clearly notable". Unfortunately, size is not a deciding factor - it is a medium sized company, but those are not auto-notable (per cited policies). As I cannot find any sources on this, and the only source (including for claimed size) is self-published, I think it is time to move this to a wider debate. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. More than 200 branches. Clearly notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. Can you imagine a similar size chain in the UK or USA being deleted? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me spell it for you. Size. Does. Not. Matter. Having few hundred outlets and no coverage in reliable sources means the company is, well, not notable. It is common sense we are not a Yellow Pages listing - even more, this is in fact a policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me patronise you too! That's. Just. Your. Opinion. And stub articles are not just directory entries. That's only if they're for non-notable topics. And that's what we're here to discuss. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I cited policies that this entry fails. You fall on your opinion. That's a small but significant difference. Anyway, I guess we will have to disagree for now, since I don't see how I can persuade you to abandon your opinion. I think this is just a one-two sentence Yellow Page like unencyclopedic entry. You think it is a notable entity. Shrug. We will see what the other participants of this will think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's on the very margin of acceptability, (still as you say 200 branches). I feel there is enough in this magazine article to fully justify inclusion, provided some more independent references are used. http://www.fooddrink-magazine.com/sections/restaurants/1100-gorditas-dona-tota I did notice in passing that the Spanish version of the Wiki project has an article too and mentions a 2013 FEMSA group investment of $120 MDD (so I added that), fairly notable surely. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can Food and Drink Magazine be considered reliable? The problem with such niche outlets is that sometimes they are pay-to-print marketing vehicles. Consider this: "Interested in being featured in an upcoming issue? Please contact jason.quan@fooddrink-magazine.com for more information." The odds are that this is the 'pay us if you are interested in a nice, positive, marketing/PR write up in the upcoming issue'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed so, that's why I said "provided some MORE independent references are used". The magazine does spout some (fairly uncontroversial) interesting? core facts that are useful, they just need to be sourced from more independent reliable sources as you point out. I just read the mag article again, considering the (low key) facts presented, it is a fairly good source. It was just an interview after all. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this for something, to compare with it. Morley's Only 35 branches, but well known in London. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The one mentioned source above is in a publication that is really just a front for paid advertising. There is nothing suggesting reliable source third party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from the Lancet, is there a magazine that's not a “front” for advertising. There’s no indication that it was paid for; there’s not even a photo, which indicates to me that its likely not to have been. My understanding is it’s the code of practise in the USA to declare interest or put above the title of the article “paid for advertisement” that isn’t the case here. It’s on Bloomberg (God help it) https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=247182537 . What about the Dallas Observer http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/gorditas-doa-tota-opens-in-dallas-7037348 . In reality as it’s a subsidiary of FEMSA, its not likely to draw interest from the Wall Street Journal, and it’s not McDonalds, so I doubt a book will be written. 11 people a day are looking at it on average. That’s 4 more per day than Death of Charlotte Shaw which is showpiece article, that has almost zero notability, goes nowhere in furthering human understanding, wouldn’t get any hits at all without its click-bait title, and takes half an hour to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeckenhamBear (talk • contribs) 02:08, December 1, 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Clearly there is no case for deletion here but merging into FEMSA might have been an option. Given the size of the restaurant chain, the coverage, and the sizes of both articles, I have drawn my conclusion that keeping is the correct way forward. gidonb (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baby miss fortune 11:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to FEMSA as per WP:ATD-M. Per source searches, this may not qualify for a standalone article. However, the suggested merge target article has no mention of this subsidiary company. As such, merging will improve the article and the encyclopedia. North America1000 16:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * merge. as suggested  DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 13 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.