Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Elephant


 * 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. To paraphrase Stifle at an unrelated DRV, to the extent that the guideline WP:GNG was met, the consensus here is that applying that non-binding guideline is not appropriate in this instance. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Red Elephant

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Tagged A7 and deleted. Deletion has been queried, so bringing it to AfD for consensus. Peridon (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per discussion by Cunard on Peridon's talk page — only "coverage" found is trivial. The chain has a whopping 8 locations, which is nothing much at all. I could find no other sources beyond tangential, trivial ones. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That the two articles, titled "Polished Red Elephant dishes up pizza with pizazz" and "Red Elephant an incredible restaurant", are behind paywalls is no reason to deem them trivial coverage. Cunard (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See this article (December 15, 2006) and this article (January 10, 2007) from the Tallahassee Democrat. The first article, written by Ashby Stiff, is titled "Polished Red Elephant dishes up pizza with pizazz". The second article, written by Steve Liner, is titled "Red Elephant an incredible restaurant". As evidenced by their titles, these reviews nontrivially discuss the restaurant Red Elephant. See also this article (October 8, 2009) from The Ledger. Titled "The Red Elephant Pizza And Grill", the review provides constructive criticism about the restaurant: "A couple of things they can do to improve are: Serve bread with salads and pasta. Thicken the Alfredo sauce a bit." There is sufficient coverage here for the restaurant to pass Notability. Cunard (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Getting reviewed in local papers does not make a small restaurant chain notable.  No showing of technical, cultural, or historical significance.  I doubt these guys invented pizza, or even the concept of a pizza restaurant. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That the sources are reviews is no reason to discount them from establishing notability. Restaurants primarily receive coverage from reviews, not journals or other media. To require non-review sources places an unfair, unreasonable burden on restaurants. A burden that is not supported by policy. Subject specific notability guidelines like Notability (organizations and companies) supplement the overarching notability guideline Notability. Failing the former (an assertion which I contest) does not mandate deletion when a subject passes the latter. Without question, The Red Elephant passes Wikipedia:Notability. It has received coverage in the Tallahassee Democrat, The Ledger, Dothan Eagle, and Jax Air News. The coverage is from the U.S. state Florida and the U.S. state Alabama. This coverage is from 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. Coverage of this restaurant is diverse and persistent.  Though it is certain that "these guys did not invent pizza, or even the concept of a pizza restaurant" (paraphrase), notability does not require this. The significant independent coverage in reliable sources that are diverse and persistent demonstrates that this restaurant is notable and should have a Wikipedia article. Cunard (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional sources: This article from Dothan Eagle, titled "Red Elephant makes good first impression", was published on February 24, 2010. This article from Jax Air News, titled "Red Elephant Pizza: Restaurant with a winning formula", was published on April 30, 2009. Cunard (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but they contribute nothing to notability, so far as I can see. They're local press reviews of a local restaurant - and I can't remember seeing a local press review of a local restaurant that said 'this place is crap - for God's sake don't go there, you mightn't survive'. Just like motoring correspondents never say 'the new Shiva Fosterchild has a tacky looking plastic dash, all the knobs fell off and it took half an hour to start if it was raining'. They don't say things like this because they are looking for advertising business. Those reviews indicate a place that exists, and sells pizza and beer. Nothing special about that. Peridon (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Red Elephant is not merely a restaurant. It is a restaurant chain. The sources are independent, reliable, and in-depth. They fulfill the requirements at Notability. Wikipedia:Notability does not discriminate against sources for being local. I dispute your contention that local reviews of a restaurant are mainly for "advertising business". Such reviews provide honest opinions about the reviewers' assessments of the restaurants. For example, in the Jax Air News article, the reviewer mixes praise with criticism (my bolding): "Our lunch entrees were a bit spotty, with the Margherita Chicken Pizza ($6.99, individual) ending up as a thumbs down. We liked the crispy bottom and the dense chewiness of the crust, but the tomatoes, chicken and pesto were overwhelmed by piles of basil. Another pizza, this time a plain cheese pie, went over better, with special compliments to both the quality of the cheese and the mild red sauce. For some reason, my salad was a miss as well, despite having an abundance of everything. I ordered the Southwest Chicken Salad ($7.69) and it came with loads of grilled chicken, olives, onions, tomatoes and colorful tortillas chips on top. However, there was very little dressing and the chicken was too hot when it was placed on top of the greens. This resulted in limp, wilted lettuce.  ... The Red Elephant appears to have a winning recipe - a little something for everyone. If they could spend some time on the menu and make every item as successful as the appetizers, this could easily become a neighborhood favorite." It is highly inaccurate to assume that this article is paid advertising. I consider this review tantamount to reviews about books. Measured criticism mixed with measured praise. You write: "Those reviews indicate a place that exists, and sells pizza and beer. Nothing special about that." – Notability does not deny inclusion of a place that merely "sells pizza and beer". It requires that a subject receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not paper.  I have provided multiple independent reliable sources. Sources spanning several years and two U.S. states. The Red Elephant meets the criteria for inclusion despite editors' invalid discounting of valid sources. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All of these are reviews in local papers in the Florida Panhandle and adjoining areas of Alabama. They sent someone to one of this local chain's eight locations and gave an opinion.  That kind of local coverage still doesn't make these pizza restaurants have achieved anything of the kind that gets memorialized in an encyclopedia; there's no long term historical notability here.  Which is why the notability guideline for businesses counts "routine restaurant reviews" in its list of coverage that does not establish encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability does not require "long term historical notability"; it requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That these newspapers deemed The Red Elephant to be worthy of coverage means that it passes the bar of notability. Your personal view of notability conflicts with the Wikipedia guideline for notability. As once wrote:  A "showing of technical, cultural, or historical significance" (your first post) is not necessary. I need only show that The Red Elephant has received the requisite coverage in multiple reliable newspapers.  I note that the "routine restaurant reviews" was added on June 20, 2011, by  to Notability (organizations and companies without any discussion. It cannot be considered a valid part of the guideline.  Paraphrasing from  at Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9 about subject-specific notability guidelines: WP:CORP is subordinate to WP:N. WP:CORP is a "great argument for retention, but an awful one for deletion, especially if the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate that it meets general notability guidelines as is the case here". Cunard (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The primary form of secondary coverage a restaurant receives is reviews. The discounting of restaurant reviews bars the inclusion of most restaurants. Wikipedia is not paper, so there is no reason not to include verifiable, notable subjects such as restaurants that pass Notability. Cunard (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Request: Would the editors who support deletion explain why they believe The Red Elephant fails Notability despite its having received significant coverage in four reliable publications? Cunard (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it hasn't received significant coverage. Restaurant reviews in hometown newspapers aren't the sort of thing that lifts these unremarkable restaurants past the run of the mill.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have provided three non-review articles below. Notability merely requires that a subject has received "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. It does not require a subject pass WP:MILL. Cunard (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This discussion has been had before: restaurant reviews only establish verifiability and do not confer notability. This is because every restaurant is reviewed by local newspapers at some point in its history. In the case of restaurants, significant coverage would entail objective coverage in articles about the restaurant's/chain's practices and operations. Reviews do not count because they are subjective opinions about the location and its menu. This is regardless of whether the source of the review is a known, reliable source because of said subjective nature.
 * You have to understand the difference between a news story about a restaurant and a review of a restaurant. An news story will have extensive fact checking and editorial oversight by the reporter and their supervisors to insure that the article is truthful and factual. A review traditionally does not receive the level of oversight because they are not news stories but opinion pieces. Now, I am not stating you cannot use a review as a source in article; they can be used to establish information about how a menu affects the operation's underlying business structure, e.g. While the Xxxxx opened to great fanfare, critic's opinions of chef Joe Blow's cuisine were rather harsh, and the public agreed... In a case such as these, this is were a review would be a valid, citable source because it verifies the negative opinion of the fare served at this restaurant I made up. But in itself, said review would not establish why Xxxxx was notable.
 * Finally Cunard, you have to understand that the notability guidelines have several subsections that establish exceptions to the rule. You keep looking at the main page at WP:Note while ignoring WP:Org which governs this exact situation. Please look at the links Smerdis and others have provided. They explain our positions on why this is not a notable chain. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your contention that WP:Org supersedes WP:Note. The latter which is watched by many has received more oversight than the former which is watched by few. Therefore, WP:Note is more representative of consensus. From the second paragraph of WP:Note (my bolding): Therefore, WP:Org is, as my quote from Alansohn demonstrates, a superb argument for retention but an awful one for deletion. Reviews establish notability because they demonstrate that a restaurant chain has been noticed and noted by newspapers' journalists and editors. This is the same as book reviews. That such articles are subjective should not detract from their ability to establish notability.  However, I accept that you do reject reviews from establishing notability. I have provided three additional non-review sources that provide objective nontrivial coverage about The Red Elephant:
 * Objective coverage: This article from The Florida Times-Union:"A new restaurant opened last week in Mandarin called The Red Elephant Pizza and Grill. The eatery, at 10131-12 San Jose Blvd. (near Crown Point Road), is part of a small chain based in Tallahassee that features a wide selection of salads, burgers and pizzas. Salads cost $8 or less, a large pizza (which serves three to four) is about $19 and burgers are under $8. Family friendly, the restaurant also has a game room for the kids. The Mandarin location is the fifth for Red Elephant, a restaurant concept launched by a former Outback Steakhouse proprietor." This article from The Tampa Tribune: "The Red Elephant Pizza and Grill. Based in Tallahassee, this 2-year-old business tries to marry an upscale, sophisticated restaurant with wine, specialty pizza and ciabatta bread sandwiches in a family-friendly atmosphere. It features a kids game room, but in a back area so it doesn't dominate the restaurant, said company Vice President Carl Sahlsten, a former president of OSI Restaurant Partners' Carrabba's Italian Grill brand. Red Elephant opened a store in Tampa's Carrollwood area in October and plans to open up to four restaurants in west central Florida and north Florida this year, he said." This article from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune: "The Red Elephant Pizza and Grill opened this week in University Park, the shopping center west of Honore Avenue and north of University Parkway. It will be open for lunch and dinner, 11 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday. It serves pizza, salads, burgers, steak, chicken, mahi mahi and salmon. It is the seventh Red Elephant location opened by partners John Schrowant, a former Outback Steakhouse franchise owner, and Carl Sahlsten, former president of Carrabba's Italian Grill Inc. 351-4646. redelephantpizza.com" While not the main subject of these articles, The Red Elephant receives the "significant coverage" required by Notability: Cunard (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These slight blurbs are routinely carried in local papers about local businesses. They establish that the business exists, that it serves lunch and dinner, and the sort of items it has on its menu.  They aren't significant coverage either.  One problem is that every local beanery gets a couple of these reviews and notices from time to time.  It still doesn't make them something you'd expect to find covered in an encyclopedia.  And FWIW, notability in Wikipedia has always had the "long term historical" part implied.  "Historic significance" would have been clearer than "notability" IMO.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviews suffice in establishing notability. This additional objective newspaper coverage is provided for . I again note that Notability represents community consensus, while notability in Wikipedia is merely an article. Wikipedia:Notability does not require "historic significance". If reviews and objective newspaper coverage do not establish notability for restaurants, what does? Cunard (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The comments you post are not establishing notability, just verifiability. Show me something about the company besides listings of its addresses and the approximate prices paid by the reviewer. To establish notability, you need something other than information that can be found in a phone book or travel guide. You need more, allot more. Look at TeaNY for an example of a article about a small restaurant that is notable. The two articles cited in that article state information about the restaurant beyond reviews. Those quotes you listed above are not ABOUT the chain in question. You need to find stuff that is not a parroting of information from the phone book (address, phone); average meal costs or type of food served (restaurant guide); its hours or who founded it (the company web site); Nothing in those tell us why the chain is notable. You have only established that the chain exists. You need to find something about its operations, its history or business practices. Find something about where it fits in its market segment in the pizza segment of the industry, how it is affecting its competitors or how it is changing the industry.


 * Try the New York Times or the business section of the Miami Herald and see if they have any information about the company. You can also also try Nation's Restaurant News. If you can find something in those sources, you will be able state that it is notable. I've looked, you won't find anything, of the 960,000 Google hits, the first 2000 are information on locations, the menu or reviews. If there were a viable, citable source in there - I can't find it. Foodservice is what I do on WP, and I can tell you that this chain has zero notability. Compare this article to Bertucci's or Pizzeria Uno and see the difference in the type of sources used to establish why these chains are notable and compare them to what you are using. You will see why and the Red Elephant is not notable.


 * Finally, WP:Note is a multi-page document that has several sub-pages that address certain situations that may arise. Basically WP:Org is PART of the notability guidelines, not a separate policy. As such you cannot pick and choose which sections of the policy you want to apply or claim that you do not accept it because it is on a sub-page of the notability guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * TeaNY has two sources: The first source, titled "It's a Teany cafe, and Moby likes it that way" and composed mainly of quotes, is primarily about its notable founder, Moby. The second source, titled "Disaster Report: Late Night Blaze at Moby's Teany", is a routine news report about a fire. The coverage in TeaNY is far inferior to the coverage in The Red Elephant. The Red Elephant reviews, coupled with the objective coverage I provided above, are sufficient to write a short article with information about its history and food. The New York Times and the Miami Herald, if they wrote about The Red Elephant, would likely do so in reviews, which you deem insufficient in establishing notability. However, it is unlikely that The New York Times, based in New York, would write about a chain based in Florida. That The Red Elephant is not covered in the Miami Herald and National Restaurant News, a trade publication, does not indicate that it's non-notable. Coverage in seven newspapers, consisting of five reviews and three objective articles, is sufficient to establish notability. Passing WP:Org is not necessary when WP:Note is met. From the second paragraph of WP:Note (my bolding):  However, I argue that WP:Org is also met. From WP:Org:  I note again that the disqualifying of "routine restaurant reviews" section was added in without any discussion by  on June 20, 2011. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There has not been significant coverage. You are confusing breadth of coverage with depth of coverage- there is no in-depth coverage of the company in any of the provided sources, whether here or in the article. Additionally, you are confusing the simple publication of factual information, such as address, as significant coverage. The sources you provide are not of a quality standard and article doesn't meet the established standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:24, 19 July 2011 (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.