Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roark Capital Group

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 no consensus. Enough participation (which leads to no further relist) but the keep arguments are either ill-based in policy or has been quite-satisfactorily rebutted. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 10:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roark Capital Group

Roark Capital Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete Notability isn't inherited. This company does not appear to be meet the criteria for notablility, references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage of a transaction that "bets the company" is not routine coverage. Besides, pretending that a company with $11 billion of assets under administration is somehow not notable is the sort of thing that makes outsiders distrust Wikipedia's decision-making. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response If coverage of a transaction relies on a corporate press release, it cannot be used for the purposes of establishing notability. Can you point to a reference that meets the criteria? Also, if you actually read the article correctly and carefully, you will see that the $11 billion is equity capital raised since inception and it is also not supported by an independent reference. We have simple rules for deciding on whether a topic is notable and it involves having appropriate references. Can you point to any references that meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep 11 billion is no small potato and there are multiple RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Can you provide any links to references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability please because none of the references in the article do. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Let’s see articles’ in the Wall Street Journal – Washington Post – Forbes – Business Insider and The Seattle Times, to name a few, and as shown here [1] concerning just the company’s history. In addition, numerous other pieces (2,000+) from just a simple Google News search suggests that this company may meet our high standards, even under our General Notablity Guidelines. . ShoesssS ^Talk 18:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response WP:GHITS is an argument to avoid at AfD and has no bearing whatsoever on notability. It would be more useful if you provided links to specific articles rather than linking to the publishers' Wikipedia entries. Nevertheless, I'll provide feedback on the first article that matches your list from the Google search link provided. This WSJ article is a mention in passing (Inspire Brands, the shepherd of Arby's and now Buffalo Wild Wings, is a private company owned by private equity firm by Roark Capital Group. ) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are no articles listed (for me) from the Washington Post on the first six pages. Refining the search, results provide this article which also is a mere mention-in-passing (And then there are the private equity buyers, which have accounted for nearly a fifth of this year's restaurant deal count. Some may have the same consolidation goals in mind; Golden Gate Capital, for example, bought Bob Evans Farms Inc.'s restaurant business this year, adding to investments in Red Lobster and California Pizza Kitchen. Buffalo Wild Wings suitor Roark Capital Group has also invested in Arby's, Culver's and Jimmy John's.) The Forbes reference is on page 3 but from their community pages and fails WP:RS. Setting that aside, it is also a mere mention-in-passing (For instance, as Reuters recently reported, in late November, Roark Capital Group, which owns Arby’s, bought Buffalo Wild Wings Inc for $2.4 billion.). This Business Insider reference has no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, or fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and fails WP:ORGIND. There are no Seattle Times references (for me) on the first 7 pages. Refining the search, results provide this article reporting that Buffalo Wild Wings Twitter account was hacked. It is only a mention-in-passing for the Roark though (Known for its sports bar fare such as chicken wings, Buffalo Wild Wings was purchased in a deal finalized earlier this year by Roark Capital Group, which owns Arby’s restaurant chain.) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I cannot find any articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Can you please provide specific links next time? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:05, 24 July 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.