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. Sandstein 09:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am vacating this closure because Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trampton shows that two "delete" opinions were by sockpuppets of the nominator. The outcome is now no consensus. The article can be renominated for deletion by somebody else. Sandstein 09:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taziki's Mediterranean Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminately promotional local news columns about local interests about the company such as location openings, listings or community stories or then republished public relations on the company's behalf. The concern here is WP:Not promotion and WP:Not advocate, basic policies and, if we removed half of this article's promotion contents sections 2-4), there wouldn't be anything significant beyond a general corporate profile. WP's goal here is to be independent of public relations or servicing them, not endorsing it. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- We just finished deleting a chain of 45 kebab shops in in Australia. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Baba (franchise). Read the arguments there. Rhadow (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is notable? Sales per store? No. Cuisine? Not that I read. The founders? No. Philanthropy? It fills the references list. We rejected that for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (4th nomination). Just because a business exists does not make it notable. Gravel exists. Every quarry does not get an article. Owners of businesses want a WP entry because it puts them at the top of a Google search. That is not a reason to fill WP with lots of promotional articles. Rhadow (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Baba is about half the size, and apparently has much fewer available sources (the lack of a unique name hinders the search, so it's hard to say for sure). The Nextiva article was kept, so who is the "we" in the phrase "we rejected that"? Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:OTHERSTUFF. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Now tagged for copyedit for removal of promotional material. Keep until copyedited by the WP:GOCE and then review for keeping or deleting.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I searched Google news for "Taziki's" and found over 2,000 news articles. These places seem to be everywhere in the Southeastern United States, and spreading like a plague. The article is very outdated and needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Improve the article before rushing to delete it.Egaoblai (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It can be hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff when sourcing these things, but there seems to be just enoguh here to indicate notability is sufficient. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY = WP:CORPSPAM. Best sources are local news, rest is PR-level stuff. Mid-sized company that is not notable. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, people. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As what Piotrus stated, the sources are local and don't attribute much notability factor to them. Many trivial PRs that don't contribute whatsoever. FiendYT ★
• Delete the quality of the sourcing is particularly low, consisting of trade notices, notices of store openings and in some cases self-published material from the store website. Refs do not establish notability.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Some of the available sources come across as routine as per their headline titles, but several provide a comprehensive overview of the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no compromising in any advertising and we shouldn't let this one pass because of special interests. Deletion is based in policy, not interests. Trampton (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. essentially promotional , so it violates NOT ADVERTISING, one of our fundamental policies. I do not know whether or not it's really notable, but it doesn't matter. notability is secondary to basic policy. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, any PROMO problems can be edited out, but sources exist. If SwisterTwister will leave her office address here, I'll phone in a lunch order for a lamb gyro. Guaranteed to change her mind.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources The Birmingham News: What's next for Taziki's? New restaurants, menu changes and the man behind the Birmingham-based chain (photos), Alabama-based Taziki's Mediterranean Cafe opening first Mobile location; How to Cook Up a $28 Million Franchise; Chattanooga Times Free Press: Taziki's Mediterranean Cafe's branches out; new restaurants planned in Chattanooga; The Tennessean Fresh Hospitality grows restaurant empire]. Coverage happens every time they move into a new area. In addition to the enormous number of routine local stories typified by this [1] search on Atlanta Journal Constitution. Material exists from which a good article can be created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources analysis:
• 1 above is a local news article
• 2 is a republished business announcement
• 3 is a store opening in the same publication
• 4 is the same place, but different newspaper but an announcement one and the same and the same details down to the number
• 5 is yet another company announcement about an opening
• 6 is an announcement about the company operations and expanding their business, through a local newspaper. And so, to quote WP:ORGIND: [Sources except]: press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material which is substantially based on a press release; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Next, with that, we have WP:Deletion policy that says pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. If a guideline can clearly outline the unacceptable contents of an article, and a policy shows that deletion is allowed in such cases for the sake of removing promotion, then it's a basic policy and WP:5P.

Also, speaking of WP:5P, no one has rebuttal or proposed a solution for the company account, Tazikimarketingintern that changed the article and inserted repeated promotions. This is an immediate violation of our WP:Paid Terms of Use. SwisterTwister talk 16:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fact check that Sources analysis:

• 1 is a signed article in a major daily The Birmingham News
• 2 is also a signed article in a major daily The Birmingham News
• 3 is a signed article in Business Alabama
• 4 is the a aigned article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, with a photo by a Free Press photographer
• 5 is a signed article in The Tennessean
• 6 looks like there was no "6;" there were only 5.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A reminder that a signed article in a major big-city or regional daily like The Florida Times-Union, the Birmingham News, or The Tennessean is a rs and does support notability - even for a restaurant with a branch in the paper's region - albeit not as strongly as coverage in a national publication would do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear promo article, reads just like an advertising brochure. Add to that questionable notability, and it should be deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is , in fact, quite a lot of SIGCOV in reported stories the major regional and big city dailies where this chain operates. Like this Birmingham's Taziki's restaurant chain is first franchise in the U.S. to earn REAL seal of approval. PROMO can be edited out, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia readers want to read this article. It is third among the 16 articles in Category:Greek restaurants, just above the Greek restaurant article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The WP:PROMO argument is unconvincing. Once page is not G11 that means it can be cleaned up. Also more sources from French version here and here –Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEY, Northamerica1000 and I removed hype (no objection to anyone who wants to do so removing any overt ADVERT they find). I replaced primary sources with news articles. Article is now sourced to signed articles in real newspapers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've tsken s hard look here and I don't see any WP:Deletion policy rationsle here for keeping, ehuch is key here. WP:Deletion policy#14 clearly says "any other content not suitable for sn encyclopedia". What I saw thr latest and earlier Keep votes say that either they liked it or theu thought it was a fun article. None of that matters in an encyclopedia and that's why thousands od other websites glsdly accept anything. I would weigh this in differently if the Keep votes showed why an article heavily edited by an undisclosed company editor without the necessary disclosure should be kept, since that'a basic policy (Terms of Use). If we cannot be expected to follow that in a responsiible manner for WP, or let alone WP:Deletion policy, we're not taking charge of what matters and what started Wikipedia in the first place: A website free of advertising and promotion. Trampton (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ,,, What's the big deal with an average business advert? Business adverts don't give us any value and the important value here is a free and neutral encyclopedia. I do agree with Piotrus and FiendYT, local sources on a local business, local attention is not encyclopedia attention. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - careful reading of the sources doesn't quite give the notability that might have been suggested above. Sure, some of the sources are reliable and have large circulations, but nothing here convinces me that the articles aren't publicity exercise - they appear to be interviews given and press releases rehashed. I am not convinced. This seems to me like clever marketing by getting some of the bigger papers on board. Nowhere is it discussed independently of the quote or the throwaway promo line. Very clever, but not very notable.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per others above due to lack of notability. A plethora of sources alone does not notable make. In addition, this appears quite obviously to have all the hallmarks of a commissioned work so the patrollers were correct to pick it out. Whether it is or not is another issue and I'm not pointing any fingers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could meet the GNG within a month if I tried and these sources were all that were required to establish notability. No, the local coverage is all but useless and we only count it towards notability when one or two people make a fuss over it enough to cause a no consensus result. The overwhelming amount of AfD discussions on the English Wikipedia do not count local coverage as establishing notability, and I see no reason why we should make an exception here. None of these sources are from major papers, despite what is claimed, and for commercial enterprises we tend to require significantly more coverage than this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I could meet the GNG within a month if I tried and these sources were all that were required to establish notability." - In which case you'd have an article written and all would be well. Yes, we need not to have promotion. But I don't understand why we should require more coverage for a 'commercial enterprise' than a person, or for anything else. Whatever happened to 'the repository of all human knowledge'? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We became the 5th most viewed website in the world and realized that we had to raise our standards if we wanted people to take us seriously. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.