Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topper's Pizza (Canadian 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. North America1000 06:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Topper&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No third party sources indicating how this smallish chain of restaurants is notable. The only current source is about a news item involving an employee. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are numerous links to Topper's Pizza on Google News (even excluding the articles about the unrelated US chain); I see several dozen from major Canadian media outlets (CBC, Global News, Financial Post, Globe and Mail, etc.) for just 2013-2015. It has also received some international coverage (Phát triển công ty gia đình: Câu chuyện Topper's Pizza in Vietnam, Pizza concept preps for 120%-plus sales boost on Halloween in the US). There are also quite a few articles in the Google News Archive specific to this chain, and I would expect many more offline sources. This article needs significant revision and sourcing, though. Mind  matrix  13:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Full disclosure: I was the original creator of this article, back in 2005 when our sourcing and notability rules were a lot less developed and a lot less strict than they are today. It's not that the notability and the sourcing aren't there — those things just didn't have to be demonstrated in anything like the same way they do now. It definitely needs improvement to comply with 2015-vintage wikistandards, but per Mindmatrix the sourcing does exist to get it there. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm surprised at the nominating rationale based off of the amount of sources I found on a quick search. Some here:, , . Definitely needs a lot of work but also should still have an article. Nomader (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree pretty much word for word with what Nomader stated. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2015 (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.