Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam's Chicken

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Sam's Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

From this IP editor, here:

After attempting to clean up the article (with resistance), it has instead become apparent that it's a pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP. The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either. TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.

• Delete I agree with the IP editor. I tried to protect this article from spam promotion, but I did not stop to consider that the available reliable sources were non-existent. Be done with it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I initially thought the article might have a bit of notability but on a deeper analysis it is true the article is very weak and should be deleted Wiiformii (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks tasty, but GNG doesn't stand for generalized noshing guidelines. Actually mildly surprised by how little independent coverage about a place with this many locations, but if the sources don't exist, neither can the entry. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is clearly not notable per WP:NCORPorWP:N. OhHaiMark (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons already stated of lack of notability. The article hasn't gotten any better in the eight years since it was created (compare) and is unlikely to in future, short of a radical change of circumstances for the subject.  — Scott • talk 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the anonymous editor's unofficial-turned-official nomination statement. I did my best to correct the issues others raised only to find that once I'd cleared the article of junk, there was barely anything left. It's frustrating because while I understand others' notability concerns, I'm skeptical that a restaurant chain with dozens of locations has little to no potential to get there. CityofSilver 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a UK fast food chain with 44 branches. Mostly in London, but as far north as Northampton, and as far south as the Isle of Wight. No one has done a proper WP:BEFORE search. There are plenty more sources out there. For example:

'I taste-tested KFC and Sam's and now I have a new fried chicken favourite'

WHAT THE CLUCK! FULL EXTENT OF SAM’S CHICKEN FOOD HYGIENE RATING REVEALED

Isle of Wight takeaway Sam's Chicken improves hygiene rating

CHICKEN LOVERS CLUCKING HAPPY AS SAM’S CHICKEN RE-OPENS

Bid to set up Essex's first Sam's Chicken in Southend

SAM’S CHICKEN BRINGS FRESH TASTE TO RYDE

Food in Herts: Five chicken shops in Hertfordshire that are 'better' than KFC

Does Harrow have too many chicken shops?

Kettering piri piri chicken shop plan gets green light despite nearby competitors' pleas

Hope that is enough. More available. Edwardx (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with Edwardx and thankyou for doing that reasearch. Does enough to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the sources above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the sources presented by Edwardx?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a rough consensus although the discussion is trending towards Delete until new sources were brought into the discussion. An assessment of them would be helpful. Looking at this article, it has been the subject of numerous edit wars for some reason.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Some questionable (no Wiki link since local) additional sources but the County Press and The Guardian are notable. DareshMohan (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough independent coverage. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reviews of individual outlets is not a basis for establishing notability of the company. If it was, it would appear in NCORP guidelines. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 18 June 2024 (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.