Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pita Pit

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. Tone 12:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pita Pit[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As written, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Non-notable pita franchise restaurant and, arguably, more WP:CORPSPAM cluttering Wikipedia. Per my obligatory BEFORE procedures, a Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase web search for the article title/company name + Canada revealed no results. Removing the Canada revealed some results in a Google news search, but none of it was significant, relating only to franchise openings, franchise closures, and corporate philanthropy (i.e., donations). Doug Mehus (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Going to err on the side of a weak keep for the time being. It's a big franchise. I'm searching for sources now, and while I haven't found a whole lot of solid in depth coverage, the intense amount of lesser coverage combined with the size of the company makes me feel pretty confident the sources exist. I'll take another look tomorrow. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any. Remember, sources have to provide significant coverage and WP:ORGCRIT needs to be considered to write an article of sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH. It's not that big of a franchise, but even still, we've deleted articles for non-notable credit union centrals like Central 1 Credit Union and Concentra Bank that, together, have more than $100 billion in assets under management. You should also try and avoid !voting without having found sufficient sources. Recommend changing that to a Comment. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a lot of routine coverage about stores opening or closing in specific locations so it can be difficult to pick out the coverage. Here are some. Coverage about international expansion. Their partnership with a pot grower to get into the cannabis business. Their expansion into parts of India. The customer backlash in Australia over one of their menu offerings. Growth in a local market. As an example in a book about franchising. That is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Whpg's sources: Franchisee-related and business-related expansion into new markets (whether geographic or business line) do not meet the threshold of significant coverage as that is routine coverage related to general corporate developments in the business. Also, to AfD closer, note that the previous commenter did not cite any sources substanding keep. Thus, considering that this is notionally not a vote, the prevailing arguments are that this company is, while maybe large, not notable. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Routine business coverage would be executive hiring announcements ans similar miundance business as usual items. Expansions activities and growth into markets is not routine coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2019 (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.