Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PDQ (restaurant) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

PDQ (restaurant)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not meeting CORP. all refs used in the article are primary sources and all I see are PR reports and routine coverage of them opening a new location. No in-depth coverage for the firm. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Can't find any notable coverage of the restaurant. TheManInTheBlackHat  (Talk)  17:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. The only other source I could find is from 2014 . LizardJr8 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Was deleted for lack of WP:N in 2017. Delete unless keepers find additional sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I totally understand and respect the decision of this article being deleted, when I created it I should have kinda expected this cause there wasn't as much information about this place as I thought. It does need a lot of editing. Candeadly (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the nomination. Clearly fails WP:GNG Charsaddian (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The name is short, so it's somewhat hard to google. But there are many sources (as I wrote at the last deletion discussion) to make it pass GNG:
 * Some are more in depth than others but they all seems pretty usable. Do these sources help change your view? Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 17:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * These aren't bad at all. I will point out that one of the QSR articles may be a paid promotional article based on the News and information presented in this release has not been corroborated by WTWH Media LLC., but the others look fine. The sources seem reliable, but I would need to have a closer look through to make sure that no others are paid. I'll stay neutral for now, I'd like to see what others think. TheManInTheBlackHat  (Talk)  19:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice finds. These look pretty good. I was inclined to discount the QSR articles too, but the Business Observer and Times-Union look good. Updating with some of this info would put me in WP:HEY territory to change to a keep. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The volume of "coverage" doesn't matter - mostly it points to a functional PR department than notability. What is important is the content of each individual source. None, not a single one, meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Specifically, WP:ORGIND requires "Independent Content" and these sources don't have any.  HighKing++ 15:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also suspicious of a lack of independence of these sources, but I can't find rock solid evidence that any of these are paid (with the exception for the QSR article). TheManInTheBlackHat  (Talk)  TheManInTheBlackHat   (Talk)  13:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete First of all, this is a company made up of multiple individual restaurants. Reviews of individual restaurants do very little in establishing the notability of the company itself unless the reviews provide in-depth "Independent Content" on the company. Looking and GNG/NCORP, we require "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND so articles that rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or the CEO through quotes and interviews do not assist in establishing notability. The sources provided above are nothing more than regurgitated PR, not one contains and "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. Topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:33, 13 February 2023 (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.