From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. HighKing's analysis of the sources was decisive. Spartaz Humbug! 08:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Tender Greens

Tender Greens (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement for non notable small chain. The references are all of them basically press releases or uncritical interviews. It is now accepted that these are not independent sources suitable of establishing notability DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Not convinced. I'm not having any trouble finding sustained, independent newspaper coverage from noted food critics over several years. A better-written version of this article would probably pass WP:GNG. — Warren. ‘ talk , 04:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train Discuss 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train Discuss 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train Discuss 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train Discuss 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect and merge would be an acceptable way of handling this, and the best way if the notability is primarily because of him. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Believe it or not, our readers are more apt to be interested in the history of the chain, not the biography of the founder. Remember: People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something. ( SOURCE). Carrite ( talk) 13:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Meets GNG. In addition to the above cited by Arxiloxos, HERE is substantial coverage from Inc. magazine. Carrite ( talk) 13:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The article is fairly poorly written right now, and needs to be expanded, but the sources on it do exist, allowing it to pass the GNG. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 17:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A run-of-the-mill restaurant chain with no indication of notabilty. A lot of references have been provided but all fail the criteria for establishing notability. "News" stories based on company announcements and press interviews rarely meet the criteria and only do so if the articles provide independent analysis and opinion, thereby showing that the article isn't a PRIMARY source. None of the references mentioned provide intellectually independent reporting and provide quotations verbatim. All it shows is that the CEO and an investor like to work the media, providing interviews and quotations about everything the company is doing or hopes to do - effective marketing, not a sign of notability. This CNBC reference extensively relies on interviews with company personnel, connected people and investors and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The fortune.com reference relies on an interview with the CEO and an investor and therefore also fails WP:ORGIND. Thie fastcodesign.com reference is based on an interview with an investor and the company's graphic designer and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The NYT reference is extensively based on a company announcement, a telephone interview with an investor and quotations from related sources - therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The eater.com reference is based on a company announcement and a NYT article, contains no independent analysis or opinon and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The nypost.com reference is another PR-based article and fails WP:ORGIND. The sfgate.com reference is barely more than a couple of sentences (once you exclude the photos) and relies on information provided by the company and quotations from Meyers, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, the inc.com reference relies extensively on the CEO sharing his tips for attracting top talent and fails WP:ORGIND. It seems most of the Keep !voters above misunderstand the criteria for references to establish notability and have only provided references that extensively rely on PRIMARY sources and references that are not intellectually independent. While the company has good PR and likeable and interviewable execs and investors, the references fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 13:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I find HighKing's in-depth analysis of the sources very persuasive. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:50, 1 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tender_Greens&oldid=1069515498"