Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Hut


 * 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. Consensus seems to be divided between "keep" and "merge". A discussion about merging can continue in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 07:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Tropical Hut

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

Poorly-sourced promo piece on a non-notable business. Considered draftifying, but BEFORE finds only the usual business listings, social media accounts, and a few mentions of their minor Twitter storm, hence unlikely to pass notability requirements in the foreseeable future. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, Companies,  and Philippines. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Although we learn that "They were several clamors are manifested to plan", those clamors are not enough for notability. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Tropical Hut is particularly notable and historic for being one of the oldest surviving burger joints in the Philippines (Grocery: 1962, Restaurant: 1965), older than the 2 most popular burger joints: Jolibee (1978) and McDonald's Philippines (1981). Coming from the Philippines, the place evokes nostalgia and has a special place in the hearts of older Filipinos. I've improved the article a bit. I hope it's okay now. -Object404 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * After some more digging, apparently it is the 7th oldest food chain in the Philippines. This makes Tropical Hut quite notable. -Object404 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, none of this makes the subject notable in the slightest. Being the "Xth oldest" or "evoking nostalgia" have nothing to do with notability. Please review the GNG guideline, and provide sources that satisfy that. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where does it say that being "Xth oldest" does not make a subject notable? With all due respect, obviously you are not from the Philippines where Tropical Hut is considered to be an institution as far as restaurants go. It's notable enough to be have been mentioned many times in Philippine literature. I've added a few instances of these to the article. -Object404 (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is not a promo. The food chain is notable. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the expansion done by Object404 makes the subject notable. Of course, it would be better to get more sources but I think this meets the threshold for notability. —seav (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is a bit of a stub, but its subject is definitely notable for the Philippine context. As such, it just needs to be expanded to better meet WP:RF as it is part of the history of fast food chains in the country. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NORG per above arguments. Sources presented by Object are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, meets notability after a number of sources were added but needs some improvement on the said page. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever is appropriate and Redirect to Mercury Drug changed !vote to Merge Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, Social Media (including twitter) etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there are a lot more requirements than just "RS" or mentions-in-passing "coverage" for establishing notability - we require *multiple* references that contains deep or significant in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) also containing "Independent Content". As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. "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. Here's an analysis of the references (excluding PRIMARY sources and twitter):
 * Equire profile on the "Oldest Food Chains in the Philippines" but unfortunately is merely a very brief (4 sentences) description with no in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Interaksyon article is a commentary on various tweets, social media is generally not WP:RS and the article has no in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * Another Interaksyon article is also commentary on social media mentions, not WP:RS and also fails CORPDEPTH
 * Manila Bulletin article is yet another commentary on social media. It provides more details but attributes those to "its profile on Jobstreet". Again, no in-depth information and fails both CORPDEPTH and possibly ORGIND.
 * The book Major Companies of the Far East and Australasia 1993/94 is a mere listing containing an adress and phone number and an activities tag of "Supermarket operators". Nothing more. Fails CORPDEPTH
 * Bloomberg profile is based on information provided by the company and is considered trivial coverage, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
 * CNN "In Photos" article is inspired by the recent "nostalgia" initiated by twitter in 2022 and is a reflection on the journalists' memories and visit to one of the branches sprinkled with other people's reflections from social media. Unfortunately it is also very light-weight containing no in-depth information and fails CORPDEPTH
 * This Yahoo news article is also a commentary on the same recent wave of nostalgia and mentions the "hiring new staff" company announcment. Also fails CORPDEPTH.
 * The remaining five books referenced in the article are mere mentions (as also described in the article) and also fails CORPDEPTH
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, most even acknowledge that not much is known, none of the "reviews" provide more than a brief mention of the company.
 * I searched for other references and one that appeared to contain detailed information is available on StudyMoose (a source of "free essays" according to the website) which was written in October 2016 and predates the references above. It isn't a reliable source though. I also came across this essay/document on PDFCoffee which also appears to contain in-depth information but I am unable to find an original which would meet WP:RS. Even the metadata on their profile on WIX here contains details which appear in this article but which predate it. There is a COPYVIO concern in relation to some of the content in the article. All in all, none of the references meet NCORP criteria and nearly all of the information is either copied from a PRIMARY source or fails WP:RS.  HighKing++ 15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Due to the sources found not meeting the set criteria at WP:NCORP, as they either lack in-depth or independent coverage. Being the "7th oldest food chain" can't be used to establish notability. Hell, even the oldest food chain wouldn't be automatically notable, because NCORP is one of the most strict guidelines that requires sources and only sources to establish notability. When the sources don't meet the criteria set at NCORP, the rest is irrelevant. ~Styyx Talk ? 11:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection to a merge per below. ~Styyx Talk ? 12:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources provided do not provide depth of significant coverage >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 23:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: To discuss the merger proposal in more depth. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete – Does not meet WP:NCORP through the sources found so far, per Styyx, Superastig, and HighKing's thorough analysis (among others). Only "weak", though, because a comprehensive search of Filipino sources has not been conducted, and the numerous pop culture references give me pause. Ovinus (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the consensus is that the article does not meet notability guidelines, instead of deleting it, we can just redirect it to Mercury Drug and merge it there. --Jojit (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mercury Drug and expand it there, as per 's comment at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mercury Drug. I can't find good enough references from Google News archives and Google Books for Tropical hut. I suggest merging it to its parent article instead and put any useful refs there. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Mercury Drug article, expand using reliable and relevant references then go for a content split that will hopefully meet the organizations and companies notability guideline once the section is huge enough to be its own article. -Ian Lopez @ 06:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mercury Drug and briefly summarize it there, in agreement to the above. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't merge. Either this is notable or not. The Mercury Drug article isn't particularly long, but if it does get to be expanded and the content for Tropical Hut gets to be split, we'd be back with the same predicament here. Either the restaurant chain is notable or not. At this point, the article goes above and beyond WP:GNG, as there are multiple in-depth WP:RS about the company. Now if this article does not meet any other SNGs, that's not my problem as it does pass GNG, but if certain quarters will insist on using an SNG to delete this article, GNG vs SNG debate should happen elsewhere. (The article has some laughable references RN now, like a specific tweet from a nobody... sure that bloats the reference count. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SNG (literally the section below GNG), subject-specific guidelines in some cases "help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written". They "can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies". GNG requires reliable, independent and significant coverage. This company doesn't meet the GNG, because the available sourcing isn't considered to be independent for companies and for-profit organizations (because WP:ORGIND is a thing). So this actually doesn't go "above and beyond GNG", because it's not met at all. ~Styyx Talk ? 11:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Two quick points, Howard my good duck. First, you say the article goes above and beyond WP:GNG, as there are multiple in-depth WP:RS about the company - that's not the test for GNG (or even going far beyond it), we need more than mere RS as sources. Second, as Styyx says, NCORP is a thing which we can ignore under exceptional circumstances and default to GNG, but you haven't made any such case for that here.  HighKing++ 20:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the references are over and beyond what GNG looks for. "Social media" mentions are no different from what RS would do interviewing randoms on the street on what they noticed during a crime scene, or ESPN asking Tom Brady or Lionel Messi (ripping off the "based on information provided by the athlete") what he felt during the game. This is just the 21st century way of doing things. The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, CNN and Yahoo! News Philippines are all RS. AFAIK, they're not related to Mercury Drug (apparently the parent of this restaurant chain), and passes GNG.
 * Citing social media directly is not RS. FWIW, the article is guilty of doing that. RS citing social media is still RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me of when I had to do some research to clarify an erroneous assumption by media outlets regarding the app used by Kelly Rowland when she "texted" Nelly in "Dilemma". Android Authority cited a tweet from an ex-Symbian developer who pointed out that no, it wasn't Microsoft Excel on that Nokia. Back on topic, you do have a point about social media posts being cited by RSes as akin to on-the-spot interviews. The witness may or may not be right, but it's still reporting nonetheless.
 * What we do need is a "smoking gun" of some kind to firmly establish Tropical Hut's notability, e.g. if it's of seminal importance or more to it. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are so many smoking gun references, I've lost count. WP:RS can be occasionally wrong, but this doesn't make them no longer WP:RS. That doesn't happen here until proven otherwise (in other words, WP:RS interviewing random people about something doesn't make it wrong or not WP:RS, until another WP:RS makes it so). Now if WP:RS are wrong multiple times, time to list it at the WP:RSNB. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep - although some sources are bad and some borderline, it does have a lot of coverage and these ones seem to be indepth, . Zeddedm (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I was most persuaded by the in-depth coverage of shortages. This convinced me of the notability of the organization in its country. It's a weak keep because the other sources alone wouldn't meet the high standards that are explained in the above comments. Spudlace (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2022 (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.