Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chopt

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chopt

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

Advertisement with no independent sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant outside coverage found. --Finngall ^talk 18:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Changing !vote to keep per sources provided by Northamerica1000. --Finngall ^talk 17:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Northamerica1000 JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure why this is up for deletion. Chopt is famous in the NY/DC area and I came to Wikipedia to find out more information about it and was surprised none exists. Why does Chipotle get an article but not Chopt? This is an up-and-coming restaraunt that has already made some serious waves and is going to be very famous soon. Cas5nq (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chipotle "gets" an article because it has received a large amount of mainstream media coverage which can be used as verifiable source material for an encyclopedia article. I couldn't find any such independent references for this company. Also please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:UPANDCOMING. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 20:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine review, CBS New York, QSR Magazine, Slate. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the some of the sources NA1K has provided are not quality (Passing mention and reviews!) the remiander do provide the depth required for WP:Note. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote takes the context of WP:CORPDEPTH into consideration, which states (in part), "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2014 (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.