Deletion of Tender Greens

Comment: Not convinced. I'm not having any trouble finding sustained, independent newspaper coverage from noted food critics over several years. A better-written version of this article would probably pass . &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: A run-of-the-mill restaurant chain with no indication of notabilty. A lot of references have been provided but all fail the criteria for establishing notability. "News" stories based on company announcements and press interviews rarely meet the criteria and only do so if the articles provide independent analysis and opinion, thereby showing that the article isn't a PRIMARY source. None of the references mentioned provide intellectually independent reporting and provide quotations verbatim. All it shows is that the CEO and an investor like to work the media, providing interviews and quotations about everything the company is doing or hopes to do - effective marketing, not a sign of notability. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/22/shake-shacks-danny-meyer-taking-tender-greens-fast-food-idea-national.html This CNBC reference extensively relies on interviews with company personnel, connected people and investors and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails . The http://fortune.com/2016/06/09/shake-shack-tender-greens/ fortune.com reference relies on an interview with the CEO and an investor and therefore also fails . https://www.fastcodesign.com/90135562/the-branding-genius-behind-shake-shack-presents-her-sequel Thie fastcodesign.com reference is based on an interview with an investor and the company's graphic designer and therefore fails . The https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/business/dealbook/union-square-hospitality-buying-stake-in-tender-greens-chain.html?_r=1 NYT reference is extensively based on a company announcement, a telephone interview with an investor and quotations from related sources - therefore fails . The https://sf.eater.com/2015/7/14/8963005/tender-greens-danny-meyer-investment-expansion eater.com reference is based on a company announcement and a NYT article, contains no independent analysis or opinon and therefore fails . The https://nypost.com/2017/10/23/shake-shack-owner-brings-west-coast-chain-to-flatiron/ nypost.com reference is another PR-based article and fails . The http://m.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/This-tiny-salad-chain-backed-by-Shake-Shack-s-6433984.php sfgate.com reference is barely more than a couple of sentences (once you exclude the photos) and relies on information provided by the company and quotations from Meyers, fails  and . Finally, https://www.inc.com/magazine201402/jennifer-alsever/tender-greens-organic-dining-chain.html the inc.com reference relies extensively on the CEO sharing his tips for attracting top talent and fails . It seems most of the Keep !voters above misunderstand the criteria for references to establish notability and have only provided references that extensively rely on PRIMARY sources and references that are not intellectually independent. While the company has good PR and likeable and interviewable execs and investors, the references fail  and  and the topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NCORP)