Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandella's Flatbread Café (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 no consensus. The promotionalism seems to have been expunged in the current version.  Sandstein  08:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sandella's Flatbread Café
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has been edited by a blatant COI and another editor who stopped editing after this page. It was completely unsourced with sygary platitude articles in the EL secion. Doesn't seem to meet notability as any restaurant (even a chain) doesn't warrant inclusion by merely existing. Lihaas (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources listed at the previous AFD and the sources on Google now . – Davey 2010 Talk 13:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * keep as Davey says, there are sources on this sandwich shop trying to become a national sandwich chain, quite a number of articles aboub outlets opening in various cities. see this search:   more come up as I vary keywords.  Furthermore the 2011 AFD closed as Keep I see no reason to be doing this again.  notability is NOTTEMPORARY.   Article needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing suitable sources here. There are brief news articles in various local papers, and local-only doesn't confer notability. (And I mean "local" like Lubbock, TX with no insult intended to Lubbock.) The NYT article is very brief and a "name check in passing." The more substantial articles are all in trade magazines, and discussions at wp:corp have gone against accepting articles where the only substantial sources are niche trade sources. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best as I only found about 15 sources overall at Books, News and Highbeam but none of it solid coverage, mostly listings and passing mentions. SwisterTwister   talk  18:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Sandella's Flatbread Café participants:, , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Metropolitan90 there appears to be something fishy here. Either this isn't a chain in the normal sense, or there has been some radical organisational restructure or some of the apparent sources are misleading (or being misled). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The above delete assertion appears to have copied and pasted from the previous deletion discussion, including the previous datestamp. BusterD (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The objections I raised in the 2011 AfD no longer apply. At that time, I found it hard to believe the restaurant's claim to having over 100 locations because some of the addresses they provided were "College Location, Dubai, UAE"; "Office Building Lobby, Dubai, UAE"; and "Residential Shopping Center, Dubai, UAE". But not long after that AfD, they resolved that problem, and now have a proper list of locations. My guess is that this chain consists mostly of food court locations at colleges and corporate cafeterias, based on that list of locations, but I don't see anything "fishy" here. Rather, this is just a plain issue of notability, which this chain appears to pass given its presence in five countries. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Where did all the sources go that were in the article in 2011? If we now have only a single reliable source and no others can be found, I'm inclined now to recommend deletion.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , Metropolitan90 has restored the sources. Cunard (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The chain appears to be real and the sources provided appear to come from reliable publications. It needs to be expanded, but i am not up to that at this time as school is demanding more of my time. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Primarily an advertisement, "Stimola says, "Today, many of the products being sold as flatbread contain preservatives and fat to make them flexible; not ours" . A moderate size like this for a chain can indicate  s possibility of notability, but it isn't the only factor.  Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a  good reason  for deletion. . Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia   DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is largely my fault by simply applying as external links sources found by another user at the last AFD, not applying the many others I saw at that time in the press section of the company's website (their website is now restyled), and not incorporating those sources into the body text as citation. If by "completely" unsourced the nominator chooses to ignore the applied citation, I'd assert QSR is a food service industry-wide magazine (if a "niche", a two billion dollar one, just in restaurants), and the article quoted from it directly details the subject at some length. Restaurant News is another industry wide journal. The article from the Houston Chronicle is drawn from Associated Press, not hayseed.com. If GNG means what it used to mean, those sources by themselves put this well past "borderline notability". I concur that promotional sounding language doesn't become a high quality article about a notable company, but as many have said in these processes "AFD is not cleanup". Allow me to provide a number of other independent reliable sources directly detailing which demonstrate GNG: Gulf Business News, QSR again, Louisville student newspaper location review, Birmingham News (largest newspaper in AL) location review, picked 21st this year in Restaurant Leadership's Future 50. That took me all of five minutes, clicking the links at the top of this process. Easy keep. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment' mostly they're PR releases and the student paper is just a local review not a notable instance of its existence. there are hordes of restaurants that operate more than one facility, but that doesnt make them notable enough for WP. Not to mention the sources are woefully represented on the page for actual content (mostly unsourced) and said releases in EL.Lihaas (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator has chosen to delete all the external links, peremptorily declaring them PR. Here is the version WITH the links, sources User:Lihaas apparently doesn't trust participants in the process to evaluate for themselves. BusterD (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored the external links. If the nominator or anyone else wants to assert that these sources are overly promotional or lack significant content about the subject, that's fine. In fact, I would agree with that at least to a certain degree. But while an article is up for deletion, I don't think it's appropriate to delete relevant sources from the article to make the article worse. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on the weaker side:, , , , , , , , . North America1000 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by BusterD and Northamerica1000. Sandella's Flatbread Café passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article as it stands would appear to meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I note the removal of sources by the nominator - personally, once an article has been nominated (or you know that you are going to nominate it), I do not feel that the nominator should remove anything. If it is going to be deleted following the discussion, then there is no need. If the article is kept, then the sources which the nominator thinks are inappropriate can be discussed on the talk page, and then removed if the consensus there is to do so (or if there is no response after a reasonable length of time); that, however, is just my £0.02...  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by BusterD and Northamerica1000. Sandella's Flatbread Café passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article as it stands would appear to meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I note the removal of sources by the nominator - personally, once an article has been nominated (or you know that you are going to nominate it), I do not feel that the nominator should remove anything. If it is going to be deleted following the discussion, then there is no need. If the article is kept, then the sources which the nominator thinks are inappropriate can be discussed on the talk page, and then removed if the consensus there is to do so (or if there is no response after a reasonable length of time); that, however, is just my £0.02...  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:35, 18 January 2016 (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.