Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza Haven (Australia)

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~~ no consensus. For transparency, see rationale for result, and result change, here. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Haven (Australia)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Note: this was kept in 2006 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza Haven. Still, 10+ years later, the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. At best, I could think we could rename it and start a list of Pizza Hut acquisitions, if anyone things this WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES entry on a defunct chain needs preserving. (Yes, notability is eternal, but I am not sure this was ever notable anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very valid AFD conversation/monologue above - with all the salient anxieties about such items - (eternity, and uncertainty are not part of the life the Australian defunct food chains however), and it does have enough to keep it up there, as it got swallowed up by other pizza companies... JarrahTree 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major national pizza chain in its era. Needs expansion, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was multinational (in New Zealand too). Ajf773 (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It always seems to me that defunct companies are more appropriate for recording in an encyclopedia than extant ones and the rationale for the revamped Wikipedia:Notability (companies) does not apply because there is no need "to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals". That it was separately taken over in two countries makes merging the article problematic and incorporating it into a list just makes things more directory-like. No, it meets WP:N and is OK as it is. Thincat (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are company announcements or based on company announcements. A notable topic should have references that are intellectually independent as per WP:ORGIND. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters above can link to a couple of references that believe establish notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was seeing these sorts of thing.[1][2][3][4] Thincat (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thincat, yeah, its easy type in the name and get lots of hits but the criteria for companies/organizations is much stricter than for other types of articles. Especially ORGIND and the requirement that articles must be intellectually independent. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. References must be intellectually independent. The Book "State of Mind" fails because it relies almost exclusively on an interview with Evan Chritsou. Fails as it is not Intellectually Independent and WP:ORGIND. This newspaper article contains a quote from the Kingston weekend manager, it is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. It also contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This newspaper article is marginally better but again, it does not contain enough intellectually independent information and reverts to a products and a quotation from a connected source, definitely fails WP:CORPDEPTH and probable also WP:ORGIND. This final newspaper article contains a small paragraph in the context of a larger article on a company called Franchise Developments. Again, the article is written in such a way that is appears the information originated from Franchise Developments - a connected source. It therefore fails WP:ORGIND. It also fail WP:CORPDEPTH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 05:50, September 11, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - For those looking for additional sources, I would suggest Newspapers.com if you have access. I found a little over 1,000 hits, although many of the initial ones I looked at were ads to sell franchises. I don't have an opinion on the page either way so I didn't wade through all the articles. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have the sources on Trove been consulted? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying things like "there's loads of sources" and "sources are available over there" is useless and futile, especially when it has already been said sources all appear to be based on interviews or company announcements (which fail ORGIND). Volume of sources is not part of the critiera, but quality of sources. Please link to specific sources and we can then look to see if this topic is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The company was a major, multinational chain which dominated its industry in multiple countries for many years. It is long-defunct, meaning that promotional concerns do not apply. Editors being reluctant to trawl through business coverage from decades ago relating to a household name company merely because you demanded it is hardly surprising. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Eagle Boys, which acquired Pizza Haven in 2008.~~ This is a functional WP:ATD-M that will WP:PRESERVE appropriate content, ultimately improving the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Domino's Pizza and Eagle Boys, respectively. Domino's acquired New Zealand Pizza Haven stores in 2005 (news article) and Eagle Boys acquired Australian Pizza Haven stores in 2008 (news article). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a suitable merge, as Pizza Haven was acquired by different operators in different countries - as you'd see if you'd read that the nominator suggested a merge with Pizza Hut. Beyond that, it can't "preserve" appropriate content - it was a huge competitor of Eagle Boys for decades, so either you make half the Eagle Boys article about a competitor they acquired, or you reduce a company that was as big and as notable as your proposed target in its time to a footnote. Absolutely nothing in WP:ATD-M suggests that this would be a suitable merge candidate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read the nomination, in entirety. It states, "At best, I could think we could rename it and start a list of Pizza Hut acquisitions". It does not suggest merging with the Pizza Hut article at all, it suggests the potential of creating a new article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - How does it make sense to merge to one company when in whole countries it was acquired by a different company, and when this company was as big and as notable as the one you're suggesting it merge with? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have modified my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In addition to the sources in the article, below are more sources.

Doudle, C.; Baldwin, K. (2005). State of Mind: The Success Secrets of 50 South Australian Entrepreneurs. Wakefield Press. pp. 25–28. ISBN 978-1-86254-684-4.
Pizza Today. Pro Tech Publishing and Communications. 1994. pp. 50–57.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response I already commented on the first book reference. It fails because it relies almost exclusively on an interview with Evan Chritsou. Fails as it is not Intellectually Independent and WP:ORGIND. The second book reference is to a trade journal called "Pizza Today" from 1994 and is pretty much a verbatim interview with Chritsou, also is not intellectually independent and fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:30, 12 September 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.