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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Smoke Burger (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Walkabout14 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing notable about this company as per WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH is marginal given that there are two articles about the company in major papers, but both discuss the fact that a small fast food chain is expanding internationally, nothing else. Walkabout14 (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the Toronto Star and The WallStreet Journal aren't major papers? Those are from the first page on Google News. AcidSnow (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The company isn't some local group but rather an internatonal company that stretch from Toronto to Bahrain. AcidSnow (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read the AfD reasoning, I acknowledge coverage in major papers - but it doesn't say much. What I contest is that there is anything about a small burger chain that meets the criteria in WP:ORGSIG, please review that. Walkabout14 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do I need? According to a poll done by Toronto.com, Big Smoke Burger was amongst the top 10 best burger spots.[1] AcidSnow (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, local reader polls don't really confer international notability as such. In principle, I agree with you that this chain does clear the bar, but making Top 10 in a local newspaper's "best local things" poll doesn't really have anything to do with why. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wasn't really sure what he was looking for. AcidSnow (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as I may wish sometimes that Wikipedia had specific minimum quality standards that had to be met before an article could be started at all (e.g. a minimum number of substantive words, and at least four or five sources, present in the article right off the top), we don't. The actual rule is that if a WP:GNG-satisfying level of sourcing can be shown to exist, then an article gets kept, and merely flagged for cleanup. NorthAmerica1000 has shown numerous other sources that satisfy GNG, and still other sourcing does and will exist — I've already directly added another one that wasn't even in NA's list. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - now appears to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2015 (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.