Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nation's Giant Hamburgers (2nd nomination)

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. There was majority in favour of deletion, 6-4 with all but one of the keeps weak. Importantly, no notability has been asserted in the article and none of the keepers have been able to source anything notable, for example awards or independent reviews in significant publications. TerriersFan 16:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nation's Giant Hamburgers

Non-notable restaurant chain, no independent references given, fails WP:CORP. Recreated after deletion in November 2005. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP. There are quite a few sources that mention the chain, but they all seem to be directory type reviews. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep lots of article mentions above and beyond directories, presence in the bay area media (including winning awards), other coverage in media (court cases, robbery, etc). Weak only because I can't find definitive sources establishing the notability, but I strongly suspect that this is a cleanup case. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep - Looks like it has been reviewed by some newspapers Corpx 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Local chain of 24 stores. None of the articles in the link cited are reviews--they all seem to be either mere listings or reader opinion about what restaurants they like, which is no more reliable than a blog, or trivial stories. That a restaurant is robbed does not make it notable. DGG (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear to be enough material to do an article, unless we want to cover the robbery (which we don't). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Looks to be a chain with 60 years of history and at least local notability, based on Google News findings. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of meeting WP:RS or WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well known with a long local history. What's next Nathan's or Jack in the Box? Article is a decent stub, and needs expansion, not deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 09:53, 24 August 2007 (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.