Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scores (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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Scores (Restaurant)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability. Fails WP:CORP. Alphageekpa (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- the article cites no independent reliable sources to establish notability, apparently there are none to be found. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Altering vote in response to comments and article update; see below. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a junky restaurant chain; it won't get into the newspapers till somebody files a lawsuit against it or something. Morenoodles (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it hasn't been documented yet by the world at large, Wikipedia cannot include it. This is our basic Verifiability policy. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a stunningly bad article. However, the company's (gimmicky, uninteresting) site claims quite a lot of branches; it's hard to see either why they'd lie or how (if they're not lying) a restaurant chain packing in this number of people every evening is less significant than the hundreds of minor actors etc. who get articles here. And Google gives close to 900,000 hits for "scores quebec restaurant"; even granted that some are false positives (excellent, unrelated restaurants getting high scores etc.) and that most are blogs and the like, there seems to be something there. If WP:CORP disqualifies chains of this size, there's something wrong with WP:CORP. Morenoodles (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The thing that is in error is your rationale, which has zero basis in policy, and which is applying the widely-debunked count-the-Google-hits test.  We don't include or exclude things based upon their size.  The Primary Notability Criterion, as given in WP:CORP, involves the existence of multiple, independent, reliable, in-depth published works about the subject by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy.  Counting Google hits is not research.  Anyone who knows how the hit count is generated will tell you that the number is utterly meaningless for Wikipedia purposes.  Research involves actually looking for sources, which at the very least involves reading what one's Google search turns up to see whether it is even relevant. Please provide a rationale that has a basis in policy and the WP:CORP criteria, because your existing rationale has no basis at all in policy and is not based upon actually doing the research that is required (by Deletion policy of long standing) for determining whether a subject is notable, and can as such be entirely discounted by a closing administrator.  Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, sorry, Uncle! Look, the Google test is a crock, I know. But when you say  The Primary Notability Criterion, as given in WP:CORP, involves the existence of multiple, independent, reliable, in-depth published works about the subject by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy I wonder how you can keep a straight face. That's what's needed for FAs and the like, yes. That's desirable for all articles, yes. But look, the huge majority of articles that are kept as a result of AfD don't have multiple, independent, reliable, in-depth published works about them, let alone such things by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Indeed, I'd guess that the total of restaurant chains in the universe that have such documentation in existence anywhere, let alone cited in their Wikipedia articles, would be countable on the fingers of one hand. (Maybe even the thumbs of one hand, as you seem to have discounted anything other than university presses and the New Yorker. And come to think of it, I've found plenty of errors in books from university presses.) This article is unlikely ever to have ambitions beyond "start class"; and as long as it doesn't (and is free of spam, etc.), it can depend on scarce, iffy, superficial published works from websites that seem to have some claim to credibility. So, the sources. As a wise man once said, When one is challenging notability or verifiability, one doesn't get to opt out of the finding part and sit back waving at other editors saying that it is their responsibility, not one's own, to look for sources. So I looked for them, and have revised the article accordingly. It's a boring stub, but I hope it's no longer a stinking boring stub. Morenoodles (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is currently in poor shape. But a chain with 38 restaurants is notable. Also, there is a link to a newspaper write up (albeit in French) on the page. LK (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, since I saw notices, I made efforts to improve this topic.  As this company is expanding in Ontario (anglophone province), it would be useful to keep this topic (in english) to inform anglophones people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.219.58 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep FIRST Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator didn't indicate whether he checked for any sources, but the references in this article are adequate to save article from deletion. SECOND An AfD is a last resort only. Per:Introduction to deletion process: :Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Potential, not just current state "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort." THIRD Nominator failed: Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.", also: Just pointing_at_a_policy_or guideline: "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy is being violated. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." Nominator gave no explanation of how or why "Notability. Fails WP:CORP".travb (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I've revised the thing. (And see my comment to Uncle some way above.) Incidentally, I'm sure that the article should be renamed if it survives; but I'm not sure to what it should be renamed, and anyway renaming it during an AfD seems an unnecessary complication and for all I know may be illegal too. Morenoodles (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The update by Morenoodles has improved the article quality, although the French source (which I didn't read my first time through) is still the only reliable, independent source in the article with significant coverage of the subject.  This means the article still doesn't meet WP:CORP's requirements for multiple, significant RS coverage.  However, I'm changing my position to neutral; I'll trust the judgment of others to weigh the subject's notability.  Baileypalblue (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But honestly, which chains of retailers get multiple, significant RS coverage? Among the North American ones. McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Sears ... any others? Yet I'm sure that if I nominated more than three chains that didn't satisfy these requirements, I'd have allegations of pointiness and disruptiveness thrown at me. As I see it, yes, claims need RS; but modest articles consisting of small numbers of claims can subsist on modest (but not self-) sourcing. It's when they're turned into advertising that they should be shot down. Morenoodles (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But honestly, which chains of retailers get multiple, significant RS coverage? Among the North American ones. McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Sears ... any others? Yet I'm sure that if I nominated more than three chains that didn't satisfy these requirements, I'd have allegations of pointiness and disruptiveness thrown at me. As I see it, yes, claims need RS; but modest articles consisting of small numbers of claims can subsist on modest (but not self-) sourcing. It's when they're turned into advertising that they should be shot down. Morenoodles (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.   —Morenoodles (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. See Pizza Delight for more information about this family of chains. Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 18 January 2009 (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.