Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Terry's

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 delete. Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Missvain (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. Terry's

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2017-05 move to→ P. Terry's Burger Stand, 2015-02✗ G11

Weak delete: mostly cited to promotional materials from the company, no significant coverage outside of local media and the Daily Beast. If other susbstantial coverage in independent reputable sources is found, it could stay. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, coverage limited to press-releases and their rewrites about business-as-usual except Daily Beast's coverage but that's not so much about the company but about how its labor practices are different from some bigger competitors. Not enough to make the company notable IMHO. The source and fact could be reused somewhere in the article about labor practices in the USA, and that's really the only place the company deserves a mention in an encyclopedia, if at all. Nothing encyclopedic here, just a business listing. WP:CORPSPAM... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 29 April 2021 (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.