Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Greek Restaurants


 * 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 keep. I'll move it on my own accord. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Little Greek Restaurants

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are run-of-the-mill business announcements, fails WP:ORGIND and NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep A chain of this size is quite substantial. It seems easy to find more sources such as this or that.  Just needs more work, not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We need references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, not announcements and interviews. The Fox News reference is entirely based on an interview with the President of the Little Greek Fresh Grill (connected person) so fails WP:ORGIND. This from Tampa Bay Business and Wealth is also entirely based on an interview and fails WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 11:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Revert to this version. The current version of the article is overwhelmingly advertising, but the advertising aspects were only added in the last few days. It was a normal article before then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the advertising content has already been removed, I am changing my recommendation to move to Little Greek Fresh Grill, the correct name of this restaurant chain. I don't rule out the possibility of a later AfD if we determine that there are insufficient sources to establish notability, but I would recommend dealing with that at a later date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Revert to pre-spammed version. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverting doesn't fix the lack of references that establish notability though. Can you provide any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability?  HighKing++ 11:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject lacks notability. A chain with 43 restaurants isn't that big to warrant an article. I see two sources mentioned in this discussion, both of which are passing mentions/PR fluff rather than something substantial. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Revert the current revision of the article is obviously problematic in its overt advertising, however the former version, despite having some flaws, could be greatly improved with cleanup and additional information. The previous revision does not lack notability, it meets the 4 criteria of WP:ORGCRITE, its sources discuss the food, growth plans for the business, and one even discusses the business owner's efforts to help students during the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic. some source information seems not to be used in the article, while other extraneous or non-encyclopedic information appears frequently, this can be changed.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you link to specific references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP please? For example, in some of the sources you refer to above, the information is provided by company sources (usually the founder/CEO) in which case those references do not contain "Independent Content" (as per the definition in WP:ORGIND) and therefore fail WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your concerns, however none of the citations are company-derived sources, the sources may include related individuals, but that does not render them invalid. I noticed that the company website is listed at the bottom so perhaps that's what you are referring to, however it isn't a reference. As for independent content, some of the sources do provide statements from various interested parties, however those are facets of the sources content, and never the entirety. When WP:ORGIND refers to content which is not independent it refers to the entirety of the source's material being derived of content from parties related with the subject matter. In the definition of independent content, the guideline reads: "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject", something which many if not all of the sources demonstrate.Grapefruit17 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * which specific reference are you referring to? Please provide a link. You say some of the sources do provide statements from various interested parties, however those are facets of the sources content, and never the entirety but nothing in any of the sources that I can find matches your description. Please point to "Independent Content" in any article as you've described because nothing I've seen could be classed as Independent Content.  HighKing++ 17:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't provide a link because I was making a general statement about all of the references. What I was saying is that none of the sources are entirely opinion nor statements from an interested party such as the owner, family members, or others related with the company. Since I established that the sources are not entirely opinion or statement from interested parties, and as a result include independent coverage within them, I then cited WP:NCORP in the following "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". In that guideline, it is established that if a reference is not solely made up of information from interested parties, and also includes substantial independent, reliable coverage, then it is not necessarily an invalid source. As for the references, since I will discuss them all, there is no point in linking them. The first Reference includes information from the owner, however the source also includes independent description, analysis, and opinion in a descriptive few paragraphs before quoting the owner, as well as in further independent content following information from the owner. The second reference doesn't include information of any kind from an interested party. The third reference, although short, includes independent information intermittent with quotations from the owner so it is still valid. The fourth reference follows a similar format to the third in terms of its distribution of independent and non independent content. The fifth includes a single block of text quoted form the owner, the rest is independent material. The sixth is practically identical to the third in format and independent material. The seventh source contains very little independent content so perhaps this reference is worth getting rid of, however other than this, every source meets the requirements of independent content as I described.Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, so just the references within the article. For example, the first reference from QSR Magazine is PR in every sense and is it is clear the article was conducted by interview. My question would be "Where is the content in that article that is *clearly attributable* to a source *unaffiliated* to the subject, especially given that the article is littered with quotations and attributions"? Your answer implies a method of extracting all content which isn't contained in quotations or marked with "He says..." and saying this is "Independent Content". If this is correct, then this is where I disagree. Given the overall context of the article, nowhere does the writer state anything to be their own opinion or references other sources of information other that the person being interviewed - the article fails as a reference because nothing here is *clearly attributable* to an unaffiliated source - and on the face of it, the information has most likely and probably been provided by the company or by sources affiliated with the company. In my opinion. But I appreciate your opinion also. Thanks again for the explanation behind your !vote.  HighKing</b>++ 15:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment the entire article has been created by a marketing company Mindspark under three different accounts, then an account under the business name made significant edits as well as an IP edit shortly before the account in business name was created. Graywalls (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first revision of the article was created by user . In the article's current state, neither its entirety nor majority is of editing from the mentioned users with vested interest in the subject matter.Grapefruit17 (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not create the article. It was created by a different user, initially on the article talk page as an AfC submission (link). I simply accepted the AfC submission, back in June 2012. North America1000 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, could you perhaps kindly fix the history then,, so that it shows who did actually create the page? I'm having trouble following the trail – you seem to have repeatedly moved it from one incorrect title to another, but that in itself should not have prevented the page history from being moved with the page, should it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. The history merge has been completed. Note that the origin of the article is now reflected in the oldest edits on the article page's Revision history. North America1000 19:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I repaired it and added some updated info. Their web site shows 44 locations in six states, but I'm looking for a third party source to validate that. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Update - I found and added a substantiating source for the location count, along with coronavirus impact news to their history. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * weak delete QSR is an industry specific magazine with limited audience, so anything from there is reliable for facts but doesn't build anything for notability. In order to establish that a company has received wide general attention, or notable, under WP:NCORP criteria, it needs multiple, significant coverage in independent and reliable sources of wide audience. Organizations and companies have perhaps the highest notability requirements on Wikipedia, because, as you can see, they're most prone to public relations and advertisement purpose article creation. I don't feel this article quite meets the stringent requirements. Please see the article's talk page for involved editor names. Graywalls (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep. There appears to be fairly decent coverage in Newspapers.com hits. For example, Linda Chion Kenney, "Little Greek restaurant chain eyes Lithia Crossing opening", The Tampa Tribune (August 13, 2014), The Brandon News, p. 6, giving three columns to discuss not only the expected opening of the 18th location of the franchise, but its "fast-casual" concept and its various specialties. BD2412  T 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of those references are based on the company announcement of the opening of their 18th location in Valrico. The Brandon News is arguably not a large enough publication for significant coverage. Other publications also "covered" the announcement - for example this from Biz Journals mentions the planned Valrico opening in June as one of 4 projected openings and says agreement have been signed with four franchise groups and that construction had begun in Valrico. This from Business Observer also from June specifically refers to the Press Release but contains all the same information and quotations. Here's one from the Tampa Bay Times from September. Here's one from QSR magazine also in September. There is nothing in any of those references that meets the criteria of "Independent Content". <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Looking at Newspapers.com, I see independent coverage:
 * "USF grad, restarateur, aims to build Greek-themed chain" by Ken Knight, Tampa Tribune (April 4, 2012): 16 paragraph article about the chain
 * "A Local Greek Revival" by Laura Reiley, Tampa Bay Times (May 30, 2012): 7 paragraph review
 * "Fast, casual dining with a Greek twist" by Richard Mullins, Tampa Tribune (July 15, 2012): 22 paragraph article
 * "New Greek eatery coming to Spring Hill" by Michael D. Bates, Tampa Tribune (June 6, 2014): 19 paragraphs
 * HighKing criticized a Tampa Tribune article above, saying that it was based on a press release. I don't think that restaurants have magic powers to get newspapers to print articles about every press release they issue. Newspapers regularly covered the growth of this chain over at least a 2-year period. The Tampa Bay Times review is definitely independent, because it gives Little Greek a pretty average review. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2020 (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.