Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meatheads Burgers & Fries


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Meatheads Burgers & Fries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small burger chain; only 3rd party ref is in "Chicago Eater"-- as such publications normally cover practically all restaurants in a city, they're not discriminating enough to support notability, and their article is essential PR  DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree they are small, but so was Five Guys at one point. They have been rapidly expanding and now have 10 locations here in Illinois, and have plans for 5 more locations including in Indiana which is no minor feat, seeing that this is a huge city.  I would venture to guess that there are many other much more places on Wikipedia which are smaller and perhaps have only one location, for example Jean Georges in N.Y. and Fatburger in L.A. with one location (Not to mention all the professional athletes who have Wikipedia pages and played two months in the pros, yet somehow have a page.)  This company is significant enough for a minor article here in this community and meets guidelines for WP:N. Also DGG's claim to only one 3rd party reference is false, a Google search of "meatheads reviews" brings up 6 more, not counting those on Yelp, including urbanspoon and This article in the Chicago Tribune.  Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 21:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I won't "vote" since this was just listed at ARS, but I was able to find and add a significant number of references in a brief period of time.. The nomination's claim that there is only one available 3rd party ref, of limited value, is no longer applicable.  The sources I have added include a profile in Nation's Restaurant News, major Chicago television stations, Chicago Business Journal, and Crain's.  Compared to Articles for deletion/Flip Burger Boutique, this chain is much more significant.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This topic passes WP:N. Regarding sources, for starters see the additions to the article made by User:Milowent. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * keep small chain, but adequate sourcing to prove WP:CORP or WP:GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment What about: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Sure it passes GNG, but why is this anything more than just another burger joint? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No shortage of space in Wikipedia. If other burger joints are notable as well, they'll have an article.   D r e a m Focus  01:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The space of our hard disks is not a consideration. Mentioning other articles existing is challenged with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any other stuff exist argument. I made a WP:NOTPAPER one.   D r e a m Focus  03:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I found an interview published with the guy who founded it about this business. Anyway, enough sources already found to prove its notable.   D r e a m Focus  01:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * GNG is the basic criteria for inclusion, with many "however"s. The big "however" here is "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."
 * WP:NOTABILITY explains its notable if it meets the WP:GNG which this one does, or one of the subject specific guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.". If somebody can explain how this is more than just another company with a few references to help it pass GNG, please speak up. I haven't heard that yet, but will change my !vote if I do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per WP:IS NOT A BUSINESS DIRECTORY. There is a systemic bias in WP towards many things, including companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:CORP and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I usually oppose the article rescue squad, this time the article and sources provided are actually about the subject and not just passing references and reviews. It meets the requirements. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, wow, I'm !voting keep on an article that DGG has brought to AFD. Nonetheless, I think that the references provided pop this quite comfortably over the general notability guideline.  The article prose doesn't seem overly promotional to my eyes.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep sources provided indicate notability.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C) 15:18, 29 December 2012 (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.