Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PDQ (restaurant)


 * 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. Despite the cleanup, there is consensus that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability.  So Why  11:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

PDQ (restaurant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising. they use fresh ingredients! They have human beings to take the orders! And, as would be expected, the refs are only press releases and notices. I wonder how many other pseudo-articles of this sort we have....  DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – The article does not have a promotional tone. It is entirely based upon what sources state about the company. Bylined news articles that objectively state positive things about companies are not automatically "advertising" as a default. Perhaps the nominator could provide some press releases from the company, which could then be compared to the news articles about the company. Otherwise, it's just speculation. North America1000 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This is actually a fairly big chain. The article currently has a bit of promotional language, but the current references aren't "press releases and notices", but actual news and in-depth descriptions. This definitely shouldn't be deleted; it just needs some more work. I also agree with what Northamerica1000 said above. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 05:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that when I wrote "a bit of promotional language", I meant that it put the restaurant in a positive light. This isn't necessarily bad at all. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 05:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. Also, does not have a promotional tone. See my comment above for more information. North America1000 05:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Those seem to be relatively local/niche press mentions. I found, though. Chains may be notable but... borderline. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually John Sculley is an investor and at one time was chairman of the South Florida group of PDQ so book isn't an independent source. CBS 527 Talk 00:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete since I see all of these sources are promotional such as local newspapers and republishings which is not our goals here, see: 1-10 are all local business announcements for the company's own gains, not what an encyclopedia considers its own, and the sources posted above are also local business announcements. WP:ORGIND and WP:CORP quotes: . Our priorities here are, not to service company PR, but to actually maintain non-promotional pages here (part of our WP:Five pillars). GNG and AUD actually emphasize our need for independent coverage, not simply making exceptions on rehashed press releases. If we removed the current promotionalism, they would literally be nothing to save, so it's not worth an article. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The current references aren't all "trivial coverage"; there are pieces that have substantial information on the company, i.e. its history/founding. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 17:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sources offered recently above are heavily promotional, see, this is exactly what my highlighted quote above considers as unacceptable sources; worse, the publication is a service trade publisher, so it can't be used in WP:CORP. The 2nd source is instantly similar to the first, Outback Steakhouse co-founder Bob Basham is launching a quick-service chicken sandwich and salad chain called PDQ — which stands for “Pretty Darn Quick” — with plans to open eight to 10 restaurants in Tampa Bay, Fla., and Raleigh and Charlotte, N. C. and it instantly starts with the CEO's words, and this too was a service trade publisher. The last one is a local newspaper in the company's town, saying . As if this wasn't enough, the article goes on to list the company menu. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a pretty neutral source, here's  a positive, but still independent source, and there are many  other sources of new franchies opening. Franchise openings don't give notability. Whoops --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 00:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * but accounts of new franchises opening are exactly the sort of refs that are specified as not giving notability . Otherwise ever organization or franchise with 3 or more location would be notable, for each one of them notmally gets a local press announcement That's what local newspapers and the corresponding websites are intended for. But not encyclopedias  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * N.b. PDQ has 55 locations. North America1000 06:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – The 2 sources now posted above are in fact the one and same since they have the same published contents, but the same ‘’author” in both. I analyzed these sources and found promotionalism: (and this is also when the publication is local to the company). Now, as for the last link (2 and 4 on the list is the same one offered above): 1, 3, 7 and 8-18, and 5 and 6 were actually general food lists, which mean nothing for notability. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could participants in the post-relist discussion please consider the validity of the sources in the article and in the links offered up above? Thank you.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 10:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's what I'll say about the sources: This one is an objective take on the opening of the entire chain. This is another by the same author that compares it (somewhat favorably) to similar chains, like Chik-fil-a and Popeye's. Here's an opinion piece, so it's mostly positive towards the company, but still has facts that we can use in the article that aren't promotional. This is a positive review that is still independent from the company. Here's an article about Tim Tebow owning part of the chain, that's objective and non-trivial.


 * Also, on WP:NOTGUIDE: This states that "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". This has nothing to do with references or establishing notability. It means that unnecessary details, like the price of things, should not be included in articles. The sources can still be guides, as long as they're reliable and independent. I thought that this was part of this conversation, but it was for this one.


 * I'm just going to end by saying that this is really a big chain, and just because they may not be in your area doesn't mean they're not all around where others are. --Hameltion (speak, spoken) 16:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could provide a source that refers to PDQ as a big chain! I haven't found any. By industry standards this is a small restaruant chain. CBS 527 Talk 18:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the article is absolutely promotional. It reads like a franchise ad, as in:
 * ...changed it later to "People Dedicated to Quality" in order to allow it to qualify a trademark on some form for their name.[2][3]
 * It was founded by Bob Basham, a former Outback Steakhouse founder, and Nick Reader, CEO of MVP Holdings.[3][5]
 * PDQ has 55 locations in eight U.S. states.[6]
 * According to Basham, each store "averages about $3 million in annual sales".[7]
 * Not every retail chain is notable and this one misses the mark; most sources are WP:SPIP presenting the POV of the company. Nothing in the current article is worth keeping; hence it should be excluded per WP:N.
 * Sources listed above are not convincing for notability, and are opinion pieces, routine and / or local, as in jacksonville.com:
 * The large flat screen TV screens cycling through images of the menu and specific menu items helped us decide on what to eat: a Fresh Tenders Meal ($7.29-$9.29, includes side and drink) and a Spicy Buffalo Tenders Sandwich Meal ($4.29, includes side and drink).

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete sounds promotional to me. References are mostly routine - new store openings.  Not yet n any case Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as there have been claims the article could and can be improved yet none has happened as the AfD advanced, this is far unlikelier if the article would be kept and nothing was improved if nobody can take the bold initiative now especially as GNG says the article must be in a state of proven notability to be accepted, not asserted; see the other news links found, they're all equivalent to announcements, notices and similar therefore there's nothing in what WP:Notability actually needs, which is independent reliable coverage and not primary sources. As always, Draftspace exists for work areas and mainspace is not that, so it's non-negotiable. SwisterTwister   talk  18:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – AfD is not cleanup. North America1000 19:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's only a minor essay used by a minor group of people, it's not an accepted fundamental policy, but to quote that page, it says based upon the issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is important when taking part in deletion discussions to anchor one's rationale in relevant Wikipedia policies.... such as verifiability, what Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view and I have, so the argument of whether the article is unacceptable in policy has been answered by these relevant ones. However, I will say that the page also have the neutral comment: As problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability. SwisterTwister   talk  21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources in the article. This article from Financial News & Daily Record provides extensive coverage of the subject: "Reader, in 2008, had just left a high-profile job, CFO of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. His new gig: leading the development and growth of a new restaurant business launched by Outback Steakhouse co-founder Bob Basham. At the front of the lineup was PDQ, which technically stands for people dedicated to quality, though many say pretty darn quick. The concept is a hybrid of fast casual, with fresh and daily made food and sauces and no walk-in freezers, and fast food — but without burgers. The menu focuses on fried and grilled chicken tenders and sandwiches, fries and hand-spun milkshakes. ... PDQ opened its first store in 2011 on South Dale Mabry Highway in Tampa. The high traffic location is a little more than a mile from the first Outback. PDQ is now up to 56 stores, with locations in eight states, including Florida, Texas, New Jersey and Nevada.  ...  PDQ officials decline to disclose average store or companywide revenue figures. Industry consulting firm Technomic projects the firm did about $100 million in sales in 2015, up 250 percent from $28.5 million in 2013.  ...  New York City private equity firm Alliance Consumer Growth, with previous stakes in Shake Shack and Krave Jerky, among other brands, made a minority investment in PDQ in 2014. Others who have backed PDQ include former University of Florida football star Tim Tebow, an investor in some PDQs in Jacksonville and Georgia; Outback co-founder Tim Gannon; and Tampa-based real estate firm DeBartolo Development.  ...  Part of the PDQ model is to invest heavily in the stores, front and back. Its restaurants, usually around 4,300 square feet, cost around $3 million to build, including the land. The concept inside is to have a bright, airy and chic ambience, more fast-casual than fast-food joint.  ...  PDQ spent two years in research and development mode before it served its first sandwich. The company bought a restaurant called Tenders in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2009. It overhauled the menu and concept, spending more than $2 million in the process." This extensive profile of the company is not an announcement or notice or routine coverage. It provides substantial coverage about PDQ's origins, its history, its projected sales from consulting firm Technomic, and its investors. This article from Business Insider notes "Research firm Technomic provided data for which chicken chains are growing the fastest" and included PDQ as one of the fastest growing chicken chains: "PDQ Number of US restaurants in 2014: 33 % change from previous year: 83%  Sales in 2014: $62 million  PDQ, which stands for People Dedicated to Quality, serves fresh hand-battered chicken tenders, made-to-order sandwiches, hand-spun milkshakes, and fresh salads, according to the chain's website.  It's owned in part by one of the co-founders of Outback Steakhouse and counts former NFL quarterback Tim Tebow as an investor.  PDQ has locations in eight states including Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and Texas." There is also this review from the Las Vegas Review-Journal in Nevada,  this article from the Houston Chronicle in Texas, this article from The Augusta Chronicle in Georgia and this article from Winston-Salem Journal in North Carolina. The coverage in multiple states passes Notability (organizations and companies). The Wikipedia article is neutrally written. Facts like: "It was founded by Bob Basham, a former Outback Steakhouse founder, and Nick Reader, CEO of MVP Holdings","PDQ has 55 locations in eight U.S. states", and"changed it later to 'People Dedicated to Quality' in order to allow it to qualify a trademark on some form for their name" provide a historical overview about the company. This language is not promotional. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * These are simply including a repeat of the sources above and, even if it wasn't, the sources still indiscriminately promotionalism, see:


 * "PDQ serves....in battered chicken...."...
 * PDQ has locations in....
 * "It's owned in"....
 * "PDQ spent"....
 * "PDQ officials".....
 * "The concept is"....
 * "The founder...."....
 * "The sales are...."....
 * "Part of the model is to invest...."....
 * This is classic business brochure material, and none of it is actually independent. Take for example, how they're similar in words yet published differently with the company state of mind still there; that can only mean the company is responsible for pushing its own PR and that violates WP:Not catalog (policy). The linked GNG actually even says "A topic must not be excluded in WP:What Wikipedia is not". How could this be fundamentally addressed if the promotionalism isn't acknowledged. Then it's also important to remember there are claims the article can be fixed, but GNG also says "Articles must be in an acceptable condition before being accepted" and the promotionalism hasn't been addressed or plans for it to happen. SwisterTwister   talk  18:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I still agree with the analysis by myself and ST's above. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added a source that said they were the fastest growing small chain in the US in 2014. Since they now have 55 franchises averaging $3M revenue, which comes to $165M total, that seems notable enough to me. As a B2C franchise, you'd expect a lot of coverage to be blogs - franchises are extra promotional since they are frantically competing for not just consumer dollars but new franchise investors. Seeing promotionalism in some sources doesn't surprise me, but hopefully any such language has been excised here. TimTempleton <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's contrary to what our policy says:


 * listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions or then the WP:CORP:
 * routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or or passing mention
 * "franchises are extra promotional since they are frantically competing for not just consumer dollars but new franchise investors. Seeing promotionalism in some sources doesn't surprise me" is exactly why they would be WP:Promotion, because gaining attention is for local trade newspapers, not for a WP:NPOV encyclopedia, as would be "a lot of coverage to be blogs" since this is not the significant independent news needed for WP:Notability. Since I quoted WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:CORP and WP:N, what policy would apply in keeping? SwisterTwister   talk  04:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being on top of WP policies, but I think I may have confused you. I haven't done as many AfD discussions as you and am using arguments that may not have been made here before, so please bear with me. With many years in the business world, and an understanding of business marketing, my point was two things: 1) New editors sometimes come to add info about companies because they are employees and may not know the rules.  What brought me to Wikipedia years ago was a desire to do an article on my father, which was a COI that I subsequently disclosed on its page and recused myself from further edits to that article.  Despite this violation, it led to me being more experienced with the site, since I was not chased away.  I became a contributing editor and now try to participate in many different projects including feedback request service, AfD and fixing articles in draftspace. Novice editors make mistakes, such as adding promotional info, and there's certainly a lot to choose from with franchises.  Our role is to remove this type of info, which I think we've done. I removed anything that looks to me like promotionalism - including press releases, paid advertising and primary sources. And I think I need to stress that I'm not saying this franchise is notable because of these promotional efforts - I'm just saying that I understand why bad sources might find their way into articles.  Let's educate new editors about the rules, assume good faith, and help them, so they can stay active and become productive editors. 2) The second point is that articles like this shouldn't be rejected because one finds promotional info about the entity in Google searches, as long as the info hasn't made its way into the article.  It can be an easy line to cross to go from being informative to promotional, and I'm probably more on the side of allowing some details that might irk you, so let's work together to make sure what's on Wikipedia is as useful for everyone as possible. I can see why franchise openings and closing might seem trivial and non-encyclopedic, which is why there shouldn't be a listing of all 55 franchise locations in the article, but the article should include the total number, which I added. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  05:59, 3 August 2017 (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. Relisting comment: To discuss whether TimTempleton's edit addressed the promotional language concerns. Remember, per WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, WP:NOT violations can also be handled by editing, so if the article's tone is no longer promotional, WP:NOTPROMO is not necessarily a reason for deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  12:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to point out that WP:NOTPROMO is concerned with more than the wording of any given Wikipedia article. This "policy", or aspect of that policy, is in place to remind us that we are not in the business of carrying information that promotes unqualified organizations per GNG, ORG, CORPDEPTH, NPOV  (and so on) - with or without promotional wording. Even if  promotional wording is removed,  NOTPROMO  still  strongly applies. This because NOTPROMO also says: "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." This is relevant because this is a small company that has not garnered notice in  independent and reliable sources - as has been shown throughout this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The references are the usual promotional symbiotic advertorials and fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH since they invariable rely exclusively on material and/or quotations from company sources. I agree with most of Tim's sentiments above and I also agree that if an article is overly-promotional but that it can be fixed through editing, the first course of action should be to fix the article. But in this case, in my opinion, there are not enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. One reference which I believe meets the criteria is the review in the Las Vegas Journal. If another reference that meets the criteria for notability can be found I'll happily change my !vote. -- HighKing ++ 15:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are some more reliable sources, some of which I've already posted in this discussion:

<div style="margin: auto 2em; border: 1px dashed #AAAAAA; padding: 4px; background-color: white; padding-left: 1em;">


 * To me, these establish its notability. I'd also like to mention that "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "reliable sources" and "sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability". For example, a reliable source (such as this Business Observer link you posted above) fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because the material is all sourced from company sources. Try finding a reference that doesn't include photos or extensive quotations from company sources. -- HighKing ++ 17:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Unchanged, still "Delete". The article continues to read like a franchise ad ("According to Basham, each store "averages about $3 million in annual sales"!), while the sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources offered immediately above -- www.businessobserverfl.com, jacksonville.com, www.bizjournals.com/tampabay -- are all local to the stores and fail WP:AUD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete sourcing doesn't meet our standards: not independent, not enough depth, or utterly local and feel good (see depth). This combined with what K.e.coffman pointed out above, swings it to delete. As for SoWhy's relisting comment, WP:WHATISTOBEDONE lists deletion as a viable option for dealing with NOT violations, and as recent consensus at AfDs is showing, violation of NOTSPAM is considered reason alone for deletion by many in the community regardless of sourcing. In this case, we get a double shot, because it fails both the NOT prong of WP:N as well as the general guideline prong. The policy based way of dealing with this article is to delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 8 August 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.