Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seasons 52

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. Merge can be discussed on article talk page if still desired. ansh 666 07:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons 52[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and very few sources in general. Looks suspiciously promotional. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:Corp, not notable, promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, 41 branches is notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Darden Restaurants is a major restaurant company, to not have coverage of their brands would be strange. Theoretically it could merge into the Darden article but it makes more sense to keep separate like the rest. There's a lot of news coverage. -- GreenC 17:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These mostly seem to be about Darden, not Season 52, and notability is not inherited.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seasons 52 is a substantial, moderately high-end national chain (although it flopped in L.A. despite its health conscious, portion-controlled concept). GNews shows slews of hits and even if many of them are just local reviews, there's enough there to allow someone to turn this into a substantive article, if they're willing to expend the effort. As it is, the article does have a tinge of promotionalism and not much in the way of facts, so even though I do think the subject is notable, I could understand if the consensus were to merge this into the Darden article until someone actually writes a better article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. no evidence that it is now or ever was notable. The references and content are the usual promotionalism for this type of article. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Darden Restaurants until sufficient standalone notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge to Darden Restaurants, which will improve that article. Borderline notability to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively, as suggested, which will both improve that article and get rid of promotionalism at this one. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG:, I assume you meant to strike your previous !vote with this one; I've done that, but if I was wrong by all means revert. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you are correct--thanks for notifying meI think a very selective merge is the better choice. It's often a good compromise. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 11 December 2017 (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.