Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattie B's Hot Chicken


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * deletion cannot stand due to discussion being tainted by sockpuppetry. Overturning to keep. Spartaz Humbug! 08:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hattie B's Hot Chicken

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

very small chain, with only the expected local coverage except for inclusion on lists.  DGG ( talk ) 11:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- Not notable fails WP:CORP--Rusf10 (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Certainly has depth of coverage per WP:COMPANY, including national coverage in USA Today, Time magazine, Washington Post and Sports Illustrated, and a lot of regional coverage.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I quoted WP:COMPANY in highlighted quotes down below, along with WP:Deletion policy's rebuttal of this. What's your take on it? SwisterTwister   talk  20:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My take is that there seems to be a big divide between just saying "all these articles are press releases or derived from press kits" versus how the articles actually read. I agree with North America's statement below that the sources are not being properly analyzed. I'm not sure what would make you think, for example, that the article in Washington Post is simply a list of restaurants in Nashville. It's an article about four restaurants in Nashville with a quarter of the article being about the author's visit to Hattie B's. Just about every article about hot chicken discusses Hattie B's - like, for instance, the article in Time, a national publication. I could go article by article over the 18 sources being used on the page if you like; overall, I think the criteria for notability is satisfied because there are numerous articles about the restaurant, from local and national publications, either about how it was founded, or its place in the hot chicken or Nashville restaurant scene. It is regularly noted as a major food attraction in Tennessee. I don't think questions about the veracity of the sources stand up. I mean, how is any restaurant going to be written about? People are going to write about its history and its food. That doesn't make it promotional or propoganda.--Bernie44 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Editors need to exhibit some judgement about a four-store establishment. Sure, they got coverage, but that's looking at the rule, not the reality. Perhaps we need to look at GNG generally for restaurant chains. We argue three times a week about this. Rhadow (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but I'm not sure the fact that it is a chain or not really matters. The restaurant is listed as a main attraction in Nashville, so I think it's notability hinges on the main restaurant, and not the other locations.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree that most of the coverage included in this article is local, and I'm including the Atlanta newspaper in this group because it deals with WP:ROUTINE news of a restaurant opening. It looks like the USA Today piece is likely not WP:INDEPENDENT, so not counting that one either.  However, that does leave coverage by the Washington Post, National Geographic, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  I can not conceive these as being local coverage, they appear to be independent and not part of a promotional campaign by/for the topic, and therefore the article appears to meet WP:GNG.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the nonlocal coverage amounts to mentions.such as in a general travel article or a list of the 75 top fried chicken restaurants  DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that the Washington Post article is a mere mention.  I also don't think that the National Geographic reference  is a mere mention, but that is more open to interpretation.  It certainly isn't a "list of 75 best chicken shacks".  Same with the Pittsburg reference, which directly mentions said "top 75 chicken places" but gives more in-depth information about the topic.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 22:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, four whole paragraphs in the WaPo Travel section. It was 157 words in National Geographic Traveler not National Geographic.
 * If you agree that a lot of the coverage is "local and routine", then this is a WP:Deletion policy grounds of deletion. My vote below along with others detail the need for deletion here since all of the sources are local and routine, not a sign in a business article. Trampton (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's enough here to satisfy the notability standards, and that is what counts. Concerns about "yellow pages spam spreading" aside, we really need to take a good, hard look at the growing "GNG is not enough" attitude about things such as this. If there is coverage, it should count regardless of whether the subject is a 500 year old painting, a 50 year old pilot or a 5 year old restaurant. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's enough to satisfy WP:GNG, then there shouldn't be any concerns of "yellow pages spam spreading" since this is what the comments later on including the latest give, so that shows a strong sense there is yellow pages spam here. So how can the article be improved? Trampton (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Comfortably passes WP:AUD and WP:GNG:, , , , , , , (3:47 video). It's unclear if the delete !voters have analyzed sources presented in the discussion, which demonstrate notability rather clearly. The nomination itself has has been sufficiently countered relative to WP:AUD, as per coverage in USA Today, Sports Illustrated, The Washington Post, Time, and the book source I provided above. Furthermore, the number of stores that exist has nothing to do with notability at all. North America1000 15:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think the article can be improved, then show us someone can, because it's been another week and no one but FloridaArmy edited it and he didn't change anything. The editors have analyzed the sources and I even analyzed those sources above, and they're clearcut spam. Trampton (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as although WP:AUD is mentioned above, I'll quote exactly what that same notability lists as its content: Except press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material which is substantially based on a press release; 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 and 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:Notability also states: 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. Deletion is based on an article violating enough policy concerns and our WP:Deletion policy says: 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....Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The comments above show no regard to weighing our policy against this specific promotionalism and why this article should be an except against millions of other companies. For example, the first Keep vote states WP:COMPANY as being sufficient yet my highlighted examples here are exactly from that cited page. Another comment above states "satisfy the notability standards, and that is what counts" and yet, WP:Notability as stated there, says: It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see....WP:What Wikipedia is not. Policy is what matters here, not a guideline, and policy supersedes as the lead judgement of content.
 * Sources analysis for example, as the sources have only been casually listed above and no context was given about them:

If this is the best we have, different published travel guides with a different travel guide-minded approach, this shows an immediate violation of WP:Not guide as quoted above since this is clearly a public relations operation for the business itself. WP:NOT ADVOCATE, a pillar policy, applies here given it says: Wikipedia is not for Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.. I also want to be clear that the latest sources that were posted are the same exact sources present in the article now, see 21:39, 3 December 2017. WP:Articles for deletion specifically says evaluation is based on the current article's contents and whether it's changed while and after it was nominated. This article has not changed and to offer the same sources present at the time it was nominated, offers nothing new as to why the article is any different at all. Also, as for attempts to improve this article, that happened once here, 00:16, 25 November 2017, before the article was nominated, and therefore the same article is unchanged now. Further, the author states here, 15:31, 27 November 27, 2017, that WP:Notability is satisfied and yet I've quoted all of the relevant parts disputing this, above with my vote. SwisterTwister  talk  20:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1 is a general list about 1 location's restaurants (WP:NOT says: Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like)
 * 2 is the same but in a different publication
 * 3 is highly similar, but with a different approach
 * 4 is a travel section guide, see above for the same WP:NOT quote)
 * 5 is a local business publication for said location
 * 6 is a local television for said location
 * 7 is another example, in a different publication
 * 8 is another followed example, but this time from the company's own POV
 * 9 is a general business announcement based on a press release (See my first highlight)
 * 10 is a travel guide in a different publication
 * To respond, point by point.
 * 1. You are right, Wikipedia is not the place to re-create a travel guide.  I see no attempt to create a travel guide with this article, it is about a tourist attraction in Nashville.  One place.  In this case your set theory is incorrect, in that just because A is fully a member of B does not mean B is fully a member of A.  There is not wikipedia policy that says travel guides can not be used as a reliable source, it only says that Wikipedia should not become a travel guide.
 * 2. Would be the same point as above, except the Time article can not possibly be construed as a travel guide, it is a news piece about a culinary trend, and talks about the subject's role in that trend.
 * 3. I have nothing to add, this is a casual mention, and adds little to the understanding of the subject except that they opened a location in Birmingham, which could probably easily be found in one of the other references.
 * 4. I have said previously I'm not convinced about the independence of the USA Today source.  I am concerned by the "Special to USA Today".  I do not follow food reviews, so I have no idea if Larry Olmsted is generally recognized as an expert food reviewer or not.
 * 5. I agree with your assessment.  I tend to dis-trust these types of publications regarding their objectiveness
 * 6. True, does not count towards notability, but can be considered a reliable source and mined for information about the topic.
 * 7. My opinion of this source is similar to #4.
 * 8. This is a staff writer, so I would treat this source as I do #6.
 * 9. Yup.
 * 10. See my comment #1.
 * There are 8 more references in the article. 6 of them are strictly local coverage, or coverage in publications I would not deem reliable.  However, that leave the National Geographic Traveler, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review as additional independent, non-local sources.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete ,,, Non notable promotional article and corporate spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment –At the time of posting this; this user has total 22 edits in all. 5 to userspace; 17 edits all delete !vote to various AfDs with canned comment –Ammarpad (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if I'm new around here, someone told me about Wikipedia and what articles worked like. That doesn't discount my valid views and every user started at one point or another. In fact, I used the search bars above on the article and all it gave me were spammy sources. What does matter here is that this is a community where anyone can comment, including me. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I still don't see anything that says new editors who are longtime users are excluded on joining and commenting and I for one agree with the spammy concerns on this article. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: I saw the listing here and clicked on the article before reading these comments. I was surely going to !vote "keep" because it is referenced with "Time", "Sports Illustrated", "USA Today", "Washington Post", and "National Geographic" among others, so that is a wrap right? I came back here, read the "keep" !vote comment of "Northamerica1000",  with all the reasoning why the article should remain, and it was still a wrap. Then, I read the comments of SwisterTwister, and reread the article. OMG! It is the best advertising article Wikipedia could present. Just read (or reread) the fantastic advertising "Reception" section. I want some of that chicken. Take a look at the guideline concerning spam, the lack of neutrality, and the rationale (such as great national advertising) for any "keep" !votes are buried beneath several policies and guidelines that mandate deletion. This article is so good I still think I would like to try the chicken, but that is probably a red flag also. Otr500 (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep mild concerns of advertising or puffery tems we managed them by cleaning up not deletion. Blatant we use G11 and that's not the case here. The reference used do indeed show meeting WP:GNG, we don't say we must see 50 sources as per as this is subjective. But the sources cited and the ones given by above are enough to show it is recognized by others and merit an article. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep there are at least two sources that are intellectually independent and the topic therefore meets the criteria for establishing notability, namely this USAToday article and this Sports Illustrated article. Most of the other references fail WP:ORGIND as they rely on interviews and/or company-provided information. -- HighKing ++ 16:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, if only chicken joints could win awards for their chicken like pie shops for their pies..... Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable indwpendent sources. Remove any advertorial content. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be a new editor here but I,be been a longtime reader including of Articles for Deletion to know "substantial coverage, remove any advertorial content" isn't going to buy you a lot when SamHolt6's analysis is persuasive, what do you think? And who is going to remove the advertorial content? There's a lot of questions and not enough answers. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as what FloridaArmy said, substantial coverage with reliable independent sources, USAToday article and Sports Illustrated article. Remove any advertorial content. Vistadan (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I've removed the obvious spam "Reception" section. Businesses shouldn't have reception sections, and topics that do, like films and books, use aggregation sites, not cherry-picked quotes. Rest of article still appears to have little purpose other than to promote the business. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Note also that seems to be aiming for an edit war, reverting my removal of spam without discussion or even an edit summary. And that's after saying "Remove any advertorial content"! Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- Passes GNG but fails WP:NCORP and most importantly WP:CORPDEPTH. I am of the opinion that attempts by two editors to clean the article of promotional material, coupled with SwisterTwister's points, preclude this article from WP:ATD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fails NCORP. How?. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * NCORP falls under the umbrella of WP:NOTE, which states that even if subjects have reliable sources concerning them, this does not by definition prove their encyclopedic value. My main issue with the article is the failure of 4 main points of WP:CORPDEPTH (which is itself a subsection of NCORP), with those failed points being routine restaurant reviews, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, and quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. If the article in questions sources are judged against these criteria, the outcome does no favors for the article as it exists, and this is in addition to the general idea (as posited by other editors involved in this Afd) that just because a subject has sources that meet notability criteria, this does not ensure inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also note that WP:JUSTA is an essay and not policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * More later, but I don't think appearances in national publications could be considered a routine restaurant review. Uh, what kind of review then is *not* routine?  I would recommend that we remove the word "routine" from the criteria, since it appears all reviews are therefore routine, since it isn't limited to highly localized coverage, as used to be the norm.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @SamHolt6. As I am planning to reply, you've already got good reply. You already admit the sources meet GNG but you're relying on plain subjective side of another argument, and in the process both contradicting yourself. Everybody can look at any sources provided and say they are "mere" routine... That's is as simple as writing routine, that's why. Also I know JUSTA is an essay and it already served the purpose of linking. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see much of a contradiction. To determine if an article passes WP:GNG, I use the following test as proscribed by our GNG guideline; Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Hence I view this article as passing GNG. However, this passing does not preclude these secondary sources from being judged against WP:NCORP, and as I have stated above, the sourcing of this article fails to meet several specific NCORP criteria. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete having reread the references and taking into account what SamHolt6 said above, both reviews I quoted as meeting the criteria for establishing notability are, in reality, routine restaurant reviews and therefore fail WP:CORPDEPTH. In my opinion, a review is routine if the publication/journalist regularly posts reviews of restaurants. The Sports Illustrated reference was written by Andy Staples and his description states he is developing an encyclopedic index of the best food in every college town along the way and the publication tags article like these as "Eats". Similarly, the USA Today reference was written by Larry Olmsted, whose bio on Forbes shows he is a Travel Writer and states him to be the restaurant columnist for USAToday.com. -- HighKing ++ 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a 4-restaurant chain is rather insignificant to give it the benefit of the doubt. Beyond, just a promotional article with a human-interest-story spin, as in:
 * "He learned the restaurant business working for his father, Gene Bishop, a longtime executive with Alabama restaurant chain Morrison's Cafeteria". Etc.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. on grounds of promotion alone and this is a strong WP:Deletion policy and I actually looked around before, and all I could find is and that's a promotional mention,  another, here same strong tones and same pattern on  and . It's also worth mentioning that there hasn't been any signs of actual intentions on changing this and the contributor's hastiness to removing the tag isn't what fixes the article, only either improving it or deleting when it couldn't, and it seems it couldn't be improved in the end especially on grounds of FloridaArmy's edit warring so Delete. No encyclopedia benefit and not an asset to this advert-free encyclopedia. Trampton (talk) 17:48, 12 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.