Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy's Pizza

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. It certainly looks as if some sort of notability has been asserted since the AfD started Black Kite 12:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's Pizza

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

Poorly written, lacking in sources. The only sources I found were incidental local coverage following the opening of one in Saginaw and one in Flint, absolutely nothing that asserts notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I might have tagged this as a non-notable company for speedy deletion but the impulse that brings this discussion to a wider audience is a good one. The references consist of one primary source and one blog, it seems; notability is neither asserted nor present. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have 65 locations, and do a lot of good charity work in the Metro Detroit area. I intended to put more work into the article over time but I decided to get some basics down after hearing about some of the charity work they did on the radio. Either way marking this as non-notable sets a pretty unreasonable threshold on notability. PeRshGo (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:IKNOWIT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's that unreasonable notability standard that's the problem. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While there is scant press on the subject, a 65-store chain is notable as a low importance subject in Food and Drink's Foodservice task force. I would like to see some better sources that are reliable, and am willing to wait 90 days or so to see what the author can do about establishing notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several references. I think that together they amount to sufficient coverage to establish notability. There is apparently a chain with the same or a very similar name in Mexico and the Southwest of the US, avoid confusion. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the coverage is incidental: a murder at one location, a new one opening in Saginaw. That's not enough for notability, but the charitable efforts may be. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the newly added "Service of unserved areas" section? DES ^(talk) 04:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the one major issue with the murders that was brought up at the time was that people said that the only reason they happened is because Happy's chooses to deliver in areas that no other pizzerias will. At the time I read quite a few articles that drew that conclusion but it’s been some time and they are now hard to locate. The original article I put up made reference to that but didn’t draw the conclusion directly so I chose to wait until I could find one that addressed the issue specifically. The original article also references their charity work. PeRshGo (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a news story that references that, although not in connection with the murders, and added a section. DES ^(talk) 04:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to me that a chain with 65 locations (or "65+" as the article says) has enough regional notability to satisfy WP:CORP. It seems reasonable to assume it could be sourced to newspapers that cover the four states the chain operates in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "keep" votes are irresponsible votes by some possible fans of the pizza served by this restaurant chain. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Defender of torch (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that notability is not established, fine. Make your case. There is no need to attack the motives of other editors, Please WP:AGF. I for one have never heard of this chain until I saw the Wikipedia article, and live in a state not served by it. What constitutes "significant" coverage is a judgment call on which there is not universal agreement. I feel that when there is a comparatively large number of mentions, individual mentions can be in less depth and still establish notability. DES ^(talk) 13:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at my wp namespace contributions and my deletion log to see if I am comparatively inexperienced at AfD, a relentless inclusionist, or unwilling to delete articles when there is reason to do so. DES ^(talk) 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's look at the depth of coverage:

[1] is a story in a significant local paper of roughly 250 words, entirely devoted to the chain and one of its branches.
[2] is a story in a regional online news source of 470 words devoted entirely to the chain and one of its branches.
[3] is a story in an industry publication, sourced to a local TV broadcast, and clearly implying the existence of multiple local news stories, now probably not available online. It deals with a crime of which company employees were victims as a result of their employment.
[4] is a 301 word ironic story in a major regional newspaper, with a delivery of the company's at its center.
[5] is a story in a major regional newspaper of 170 words entirely devoted to a charitable action of the company.
[6] is a story in a major regional newspaper which devotes a paragraph to that same charitable action.

Not the most through coverage on record, no. But I think plenty of fine wikipedia articles are routinely retained on no more. DES ^(talk) 14:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since this is not an article about a charitable organization but a pizza chain, suggestions that notability accrues because of its charitable activities are extremely dubious to me; activities of that nature are a form of advertising. Similarly, suggesting that notability accrues because of a murder that took place at a specific location has nothing to do with any definition of notability that makes any sense to me; murders occur, regrettably, at a myriad of locations all over the United States every day and very, very few of those places become notable as a result. Unless you are suggesting, and I don't for a moment think you are, that the quality of the pizza had anything to do with the murders, the location is irrelevant. I have seen very little associated with this organization presented here that has anything to do with its notability as a company; something about it as a company that makes it special or unusual and that is related to its business function, that of purveying pizza. This company's notability has absolutely nothing to do with murder, police smashing in a door, or H1N1 vaccine UNLESS it meets the general notability guideline as a result of those activities; that, to me, would require much, much more than the local coverage I see presented here. I'd suggest that arguments that assert notability connected with the company's business model are the only ones that will be of any use. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response The charitable actions are, at least in part, a form of advertising, but they are advertising that draw notice, and therefore notability. (I say in part because quoted statements from the business founder claim a sincere desire to assist the communities in which he operates, which there is no reason to disbelieve.) Indeed successful advertising is one of the main ways in which businesses become notable. The relevance of the murders is that they occurred because of employment with the company, and at least possibly, because of the company's documented policy of providing delivery service to inner city neighborhoods in which other companies will not provide service. Note that the story says that the killer attempted to get a different pizza parlor to deliver to the abandoned house, but they refused. That indicates a difference in conduct, indeed in business model, about this company which may contribute to notability. I will admit that the incident of the battering ram does not greatly contribute to nobility. Your premise seems to be that notability of the company must be centered, indeed must exclusively consist of, stories about its purely business activities, not stories that discuss it in other connections. I see no reason for such a view: coverage is coverage, notability is notability. For example, the "Crazy Eddy" chain of appliance and electronics stores was notable largely for the unusual tone and content of their advertisements, not for their actual businesses, which were fairly standard. I should also point out that at least one of the cited stories deals with the company's willingness to expand even during the recent economic hard times, in contrast to the contractive policy pursued by many businesses. That is surely about the company's buisness model. Perhaps you didn't notice this because it was in a story whose initial hook was the opening of a new store. DES ^(talk) 20:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well there have obviously been a lot of changes to the little article I half heartedly started. I honestly didn’t expect people to immediacy want to destroy it, nor take time to save it. And I would like to thank the people who did make efforts to improve it as opposed to just throwing it away. All that aside I think it is clear that this article has now become one of the best articles within the North America subheading in the Pizza Chains Template and I find it hard to believe that there would be any resistance in keeping it outside of someone’s personal vendetta. I’m not sure of the motivation behind so zealously opposing it at first but I think the article has now appropriately responded to the original criticism. PeRshGo (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this characterization. If you think that a discussion at WP:AfD about a topic that is conducted entirely in terms of whether or not the article in question meets Wikipedia policies is some sort of "vendetta", then you have completely misunderstood the purpose and function of this discussion and have lost sight of the relevant guideline that governs how we are supposed to view each other's efforts here. Frankly, you should be pleased that so many knowledgeable users have spent their time testing this article against policy statements. If you think this is somehow a question of personal ego, I suggest you re-examine the reasons you're here in the first place. This is not about zealotry, this is about contribution. I'm here volunteering my time to improve Wikipedia by contributing to discussions like this to the best of my knowledge and ability, and I suggest you need to retract some of your characterizations above. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think so. Now I do greatly appreciate those who helped to improve the article, and have already expressed my gratitude to at least one contributor I do not have the same respect for those who only wanted to delete it without even attempting improvement. The fact is you and user:TenPoundHammer sift through newly created articles specifically looking for articles to delete. And while I understand this is a necessary service you go about it with such zealotry and distain going as far as to flame my first attempt to defend it my natural response is anything but gratitude. The fact is when you push this hard to see an article deleted people are going to assume you have a vendetta whether it be in reference to the article’s subject or just new articles in general. PeRshGo (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The detroit metro area papers are not as easily accessible as some other metro areas, but every indication tells me that this chain is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Having a tough time thinking of any chain of similar size that wouldn't naturally have sufficient coverage, and i know much smaller chains have been kept, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuhn's Quality Foods, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridley's Family Markets.--Milowent (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2010 (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.