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.
Cannot find any reliable sources in English that establish notability for company. Prodded article and editor added a reference, but not from what I would consider a reliable source. As it stands, article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. CNMall41 (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say the source I added isn't reliable? FoxLad (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:UGC and hosted by Blogger. Personal travel blog with no fact checking policy that I can find listed. Unless the site owner is an established expert (which I cannot find anything to support that) it would not be a reliable source IMHO. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the site's about section, the blogger is a graduate of business administration. Doesn't that make him a expert? FoxLad (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my opinion. It only means he is a "graduate of business administration." If that were the case, I would be an expert in computer engineering and I guarantee you I am no where near that. I'm still struggling with Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutral, pending further comments from OP in discussion below.--talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC), per CNMall41's reasoning. Of the references provided, one is a blog with no available info as to establish expertise of the blogger so as to lend reliability to the source (per WP:BLOGS), while another is a job-listing website, which given the dead link and the nature of the source, cannot IMHO reasonably help establish notability of the business/organisation by itself. The only other cited resource, which on the basis of good faith I will assume to be an independent reliable source, does not seem to support notability either, as it merely seems to support the running of the business without a permit at a given moment (and thus would not amount to sufficient/in-depth coverage per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH). A Google search (using the queries "Burger Machine philippines" -wikipedia and "Burger Machine" +philippines -wikipedia) did not result in any other reliable sources either to establish or support notability.--talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 21:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Here's an 2009 article about the founder from the Philippine Star that confirms there were more than 1400 of these burger stands at one point [1]; and a page about the company in a Philippine business textbook [2]. With due regard for avoiding systemic geographical bias, I'd be inclined to give a national chain of that size the benefit of the doubt.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would too. The only problem is that I believe a franchise with 1,400 locations would have more press. Unfortunately, there are only the brief mentions you presented as well as information from unreliable sources. What you presented would not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH IMO. I agree the place exists, but so do a ton of other franchises that don't meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a book reference (Felina C. Young; Cristobal M. Pagoso (2008). Principles of Marketing' 2008 Ed. Manila, Phillippines: Rex Book Store. pp. 256–258. ISBN9789712350634. Retrieved 11 January 2017. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)) which I posted on the article Talk page. I didn't add it to the article yet because it differs in some respects, e.g. founders were husband and wife, not sisters; 81 stores in first year; etc. Assuming it's the same company, I !voted keep as this is a reliable source. Geoff | Who, me? 20:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same source presented above. Can you tell me how, based on the single passing mention source you presented, this would meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORG? Again, you proven its existence, nothing more. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realized only after I posted that the book was the same as mentioned by Arxiloxos. Nevertheless, it appears to me to be a reliable source with enough substance that, assuming it refers to the same organization, supports general notability. Another mention in a publication of longstanding substance is this: The Fookien Times Philippines Yearbook. Philippines: Fookien Times. 1997. p. 284. Retrieved 11 January 2017. from The Fookien Times. And yet another mention here: Asian Business, Volume 36, Issues 7-12. Philippines: Far East Trade Press. 2000. p. 22. Retrieved 11 January 2017. I'm thinking there's enough available if we kept looking to justify keeping the article as I've been able to find these in a relatively short period of time, even with the issue of systemic geographical bias mentioned by Arxiloxos, which clearly affects search results. The does not seem to be a "one-location" restaurant, but one with 1,000s of sites in operation, at least at one time. And notability is not temporary. Geoff | Who, me? 22:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me ask it this way as I don't think I was clear enough in my original question. WP:ORG states the company would be notable if it "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." How do the sources you provided meet that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having had a brief look at the additional sources provided by Arxiloxos and Geoff, I must admit that notability may have been met for this topic. Of the four elements of WP:ORG and WP:GNG, I haven't found any reason to doubt the reliability or independence of these secondary sources. The only question is whether significant coverage has been established. Going by the description of significance in WP:GNG
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view.
it is clear that significant coverage only requires that there is enough information so that no original research is required. It does not require substantial coverage. In this light, it seems that significant coverage is also met. At the minimum, the book discusses the case of "Burger Machine" in quite some detail, notwithstanding that length-wise, it does not cover more than one page. Assuming the other two sources also cover the topic in some detail (and I'm willing to take this assumption in good faith, it is likely that notability for the purpose of Wikipedia has been met (regardless of whatever opinion any of us have on the notoriety of the topic).--talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1 - Not sure I follow the reasoning here. WP:TRIVCOV states we need "significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required". Note it says "in detail." We have four references, only two of which are readable to determine any depth of what is actually said of the subject. I agree with the definition of WP:SIGCOV in that it must "address the topic directly and in detail so that no original research is needed to extract content." The only content can we extract from the two sources is that it exists.
2 - WP:CORPDEPTH says that "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This is trivial coverage as it only mentions its existence. It also says "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Do we have enough to write MORE than a very brief, incomplete stub? Not really. In fact, the only two references that we could use actually contradict each other as far as ownership so we cannot even talk about who founded it. There is nothing else to write about then.
3 - WP:SIGCOV states that ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Based on what we can write about (its existence) would violate Wikipedia:NOT as all we have to write about is that it exists.
4 - Now I am the first person who will vote to keep an article if I can find a reason to. Here, I just don't see how this passes WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:CORPDEPTH. Not even close. If it did based on the rationale provided, I could create Wikipedia pages for any company I can find mentions for as long as they are from at least 2 reliable sources. But again, just my humble opinion based on interpretation of the guidelines.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced one of the dead links with a working one. I hope that would clear things up. FoxLad (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 26 January 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.