Talk:List of pizza chains of the United States

importance standard for inclusion

Hey, what is the standard for this list, about how important a pizza chain needs to be, to be listed here? There are literally thousands of 2 or 3 store pizza "chains", which could be listed. And, I added a section to cover pizza chains that are no longer operational through merger or name change or going out of business. --doncram 22:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what the standard of inclusion is. Idaho Pizza Company currently has 15 locations, all in Idaho. Primo's Pizza, similar to Cici's Pizza, had several locations but has reduced to only 3. Keystone Pizza (not the two location one in Pennsylvania) with a 1910's Keystone Cops theme (they used to have endless loop film cartridge projectors showing Keystone Cops shorts or old cartoons), used to have a large number of locations (mainly in the Pacific northwest) but appears to have reduced to a basic name only franchise with owners responsible for sourcing their own food etc. 66.232.94.33 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No clear standard here, I've marked the list as having no clear inclusion policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The standard is as stated in the lead: This list is limited to pizza chain restaurants that are based, headquartered or originated in the United States. As such, pizza chains that are based, headquartered or that originated from other countries are not included. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be in favor of only allowing entries that have Wikipedia pages. This prevents the page from turning into a list of external links. There should be real content provided. Gawul00 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists can include red-linked articles that show promise for an article. Notice how I restored and added reliable sources for the redlinks that you recently removed. For more information, see WP:REDYES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I also added a {{dynamic list}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• the basic standard for this list and all such lists, is that there be a WP article. I have removed a few that do not have them, as is standard practice. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• With all due respect, that is simply not so, and using bold for all of a claim does not make it true. I reverted DGG's edit on basis that standard for this list is under discussion. In this diff vs. Northamerica1000's last version there were at least a few sourced items. I didn't review the additions since Northamerica1000's however.
• In general, it can be problematic to have lists with unclear inclusion standards that tend to invite additions and deletions. But likewise having list-items with lower standard of notability helps in reducing pressure to create articles. Churning either way is bad for Wikipedia, in part as it turns off reasonable, well-meaning new editors. As Northamerica1000 properly suggests, and I will put in all-caps just to reply in kind (take this as light-hearted please  :) ) IT IS SUPPORTED IN POLICIES (AND IS FREQUENTLY IF NOT MOST FREQUENTLY IN PRACTICE) THE CASE THAT RED-LINKS WITH SUPPORTING FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED IN OPEN-ENDED LISTS. Sorry for shouting. :)
• I suggest we discuss what is a reasonable standard for pizza chains specifically. Perhaps a guideline that pizza chains included should a) have X or more stores, where X is 10 or some other number, or b) have a separate article, or c) have supporting footnotes or a Talk page discussion that shows significant coverage besides in directories and in local newspapers? That excludes the vast majority of pizza stores that are limited by the span of control of an individual or few family member-owners; a chain of 10 or more has to have business practices developed that are seriously different. --doncram 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The more specific way to state the practice on other such lists, is that it contains those with WP artices--and usually, every one of them with a WP article, and instances where it is obvious that a WP article would be justified.*(.e.g. a list of alumni that cites someone as a member of a legislature, but nobody has yet written the artticle).

There will obviously be disagreements about what constitutes "obviously" The normal way of settling these disputes is to say: if you think it's obvious, writethe article. \

I have no special interest in pizza chains as distinguished from other such lists, except restaurant articles are a/one of the more frequent instances of spam, b/ one of the types of articles with disputed decisions at AfD. The proper place for arguing about the notability of something is AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What you suggest is one way to handle things, but it is not the only acceptable way. Or do you seriously think that it is the only way? Am I not clear, because I covered redlinks (which your wording handles fine) but I didn't speak enough about blacklink items. Many lists...certainly many thousands of lists of historic places and other items that I am familiar with...do not require every item to be separate-article-notable, and that is entirely consistent with wp:LISTN. It would help me to hear that you understand that, including that allowing lower standard within a list-article can possibly work out better overall, pragmatically. There can be differences of opinion about what works best pragmatically, of course.

For this list of pizza chains, I have made my specific suggestion, that we set a working guideline of 10 or more stores, and 2 other options. (ping Northamerica1000). --doncram 09:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, according to MOS LiSTS aI think it is indeed the only acceptable way in almost all cases for lists of this sort, unless a list is being selective for some *stricter *criterion. The exception is when we use a list to merge semi-notable articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

DGG, thank you for being clear. IMO your position is in contradiction to what is written in Wikipedia policy/guidelines; it is simply not what is stated in guidelines for list-articles. We can agree to disagree, I guess, and leave it to others to break a tie between us, at every list-article? It would be better to reach some common understanding, right? So trying to engage with what you state:

• if I understand you correctly, you would apparently allow additions of semi-notable items (i.e. where it is not immediately proven that the item is individually meets GNG) IF AND ONLY IF adding them to the list enables their separate articles to be eliminated (presumably by either redirect or outright deletion). But you would not allow a list-article to mention equivalent "semi-notable" pizza restaurant chains up front (where the editors on a page like here agree upon an objective or other standard). So the only way forward for a contributor would be to create new article, which you would delete by PROD or by AFD, and you would also not allow it to be added to a list of pizza restaurants? Because it does not have an article pre-existing as of 2015 end? So all the restaurants where people have already created weak articles would be grandfathered in, but new equivalent articles would not be allowed?!? That seems mean/arbitrary, and would generally favor American and British restaurant topics, as many more of them have been created, relative to restaurants in other countries. (See ongoing AFD about a restaurant chain in French-language Quebec, which may be an example where English-language bias could unfairly rule.)
• On the other hand, I believe that allowing mention of chains meeting a threshold size would allow/encourage contributors to add information to the list-article instead of creating a separate page. And when a new contributor creates an article on a semi-notable restaurant independently, we can nicely point out its mention on the list (or add it) and do a merge without an AFD process, and in a way that contributors can see they are getting "fair" treatment.
• Is this done elsewhere? Yes, creating lists deliberately to head off separate article creation, or having that effect, has worked for coverage in many areas. One example is List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course that I created towards ending conflict around new articles being created in that topic area, as well as providing a nicer resolution on AFDs where individual named corners were decided to be non-notable. Other examples are lists of historic sites, where lesser importance items (such as sites that have been demolished) are included in black in advance.
• I especially hate the idea of leaving a trap for contributors, i.e. having it planned for us to delete most new contributions in this topic area, one by one, and giving contributors a bad experience (and I can't imagine you want to create a trap). IMO accepting list-item entries relatively easily and by clear standard (say 10 or more, where I really think that decent coverage meeting GNG will exist and will be found eventually) in advance of a separate article being created and surviving would be far better. And by my reading this is obviously within policy/guidelines.

I hope you could respond again, especially if I misinterpreted anything here.--doncram 19:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, 15 outlets seems a more important breaking point than 10, at least in NYC where restaurant chains of 15+ are now required to mark on their menus when salt content of a dish exceeds the U.S. daily allowance (i noted this in recent general news). --doncram 03:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• It has been uncovered that a number of undisclosed paid editors had been adding companies to this list and others similar like it. I'm in agreement with DGG that an editorial choice must be made to ensure that this list adheres to WP:NOTDIR. A few sources does not relieve this list from becoming indiscriminate. Mkdw^talk 05:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, I get the sense you mean, but I think it argues for the criterion usually being the objective number of outlets. The existence of "few sources" can be a pain to evaluate as to notability for articles and also for list-items, so a clear standard by number of outlets (with a high cutoff) is way easier to manage and keeps this list from being discriminate. (Few sources often might be merely the company's website plus clippings it has itself collected and posted, and possibly other local news items, or it could be enough to pass some notability threshold that is hard to define.) About additions by undisclosed paid editors, if you are referring to some recent additions, it is very easy to rule those out because the added items are small chains with 9 (Pizza Chief), 8 or 9 (Toppers Pizza Palace), and 6 (Rusty's Pizza) outlets. In my edits following the additions, I was recording the number of outlets those chains had, and I would have removed them soon according to this discussion, if y'all would agree that those numbers are too small. If instead you want to argue whether adequate independent sources exist about each of these, that would indeed make management of the list unwieldy. --doncram 20:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

that sort of situation is indeed exactly the one where holding to the notability standard has a clear advantage. It is the only clear reason for making the cut at a definite place, rather than arguing on number of branches, etc, where almost any proposed level could e defended as well as another. one place rather than another. Doncram, this is the way to deal with new contributors to avoid disappointment--make clear that there is no point arguing it here, and what they need to do is to try to make an article; it will either be accepted, or it will not. I've dealt with many people this way at various places in WP, and they almost all accept this: telling them it's not my decision, but up to the community in the usual way, explaining that AfD is not always perfectly consistent, and that if they want to try, they can take their chances. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I read this last comment I thought it was heading for support of number of outlets being a good approach, because the number being 15 or some other number would provide "a definite place", precluding arguments. Number of outlets provides a "clear advantage". It will not be hard to identify whether the number of outlets for a chain is over 10, or 15, or 20, or 30. Each chain has a directory of theirs (often including some marked "Coming soon" which don't count). It certainly would be horrible business for a chain to direct their customers to outlets that do not exist, so I highly doubt that chains will publicly lie about which (and how many) outlets they have. Setting a cutoff, probably higher than 10, and now I am suggesting 15, makes it easy to eliminate entries, making it clear to new contributors that they are being treated fairly. This will allow addition of medium-sized chains by anyone, without forcing work on many of the new contributors and on the backlogged AFC editors and AFD editors. New contributors or anyone else can add brief significant info about a chain to a "Description" or "Notes" column that can be added to this list-article. Only when a chain is below the cutoff will there be a problem for new contributors who think the cutoff is unfair or that their local chain is more special than others. Only then will anyone be forced to try to create a separate article, "take their chances" etc, and likely have a disappointing experience. IMHO, it is good to reduce the suffering out there, as well as to reduce the workload for regular Wikipedia editors. I think "we" broadly ought to become smarter about heading off the necessity of AFDs. For pizza chain type of restaurants, i think we can end the churning pretty well by setting a cutoff number like 15.

@Mkdw and DGG:, I am open to discussion, i'm not fixed in this. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding something, especially. But note the three of us are not far apart, really, in our views about items like "Toppers Pizza Palace" (it has 9 outlets, there is no article, and I think we all do not want to encourage the creation of one). Anyhow, no one is arguing for a fixed number different than 15, so I trust the two of you will be okay with me gradually table-izing the list, my adding columns for the number of outlets and for notes/descriptions, and my planning to remove the "low-count" ones that do not have articles to a section of this Talk page. For "low-count" ones that do have articles, the refined list will serve to direct editorial review to whether any of those articles should be deleted. --doncram 20:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

removed items

Items removed from list-article because they seemed non-notable, perhaps because they seem not to meet list-item notability standard under discussion above:

• 1000 Degrees Pizzeria (13 per subpages of http://www.1000degreespizza.com/neapolitan-pizza-locations/)
• Dewey's Pizza (22 outlets in Cincinnati, St. Louis, Columbus, Cleveland, Dayton)
• Flippin Pizza (15 U.S. outlets per an article; current website locations list not responding)
• Numero Uno (9 per http://numerounopizza.com/locations/)
• Pieology (20 per http://locations.pieology.com/#/map)
• Pizza Chief (9 locations? or just 1?)
• Porky's Pizza (9 per http://www.porkyspizza.com/locations.php)
• Reginelli's Pizzeria (9 per http://www.reginellis.com/locations/)
• Roman Candle (5 per http://theromancandle.com/our-locations/)
• Sarpino's Pizzeria (23 in Chicago area, 1 in Atlanta, 2 in Austin area, more, per [1])
• Toppers Pizza Palace (8 or 9 locations)
• Veraci Pizza (2, one in Seattle and one in Bend)

References

--doncram 20:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of Connie's (Chicago area chain)

No mention here of Connie's?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie%27s_Pizza

Interestingly, growing up in the midwest, my two favorite pizza chains were Cottage Inn (In Ann Arbor) and Connie's (when I moved to Chicago). Was happy to see Cottage Inn on this list, but surprised Connie's wasn't. Both chains are about the same size/significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.104.57 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Is three stores is a "chain". Cottage inn has a couple of dozen locations. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Is Stevie B's Notable enough to qualify for inclusion on this list?

I hope it wouldn't be trivial to bring up Pizzeria chain that I believe merits inclusion. I'd like to read some feedback before adding to the list. Here's the relevant information (via it's website here: https://stevibs.com/ ) (and yes I will make the links into proper references if and when I get the go ahead.

Name	Head office location	Original location	Year started	Number of locations	Notes
Stevie B's	Atlanta, Georgia (here: https://www.franchising.com/stevibspizza/)	Atlanta, Georgia	1996	19 (here: https://stevibs.com/locations-all/)

Other details: Thirteen restaurants are located in Georgia, while the other six are in Alabama (three locations), Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. Worth noting it surpasses twenty three other pizzerias currently included on the list.

For the sake of disclosure to avoid any appearance of impropriety, I am neither employed nor associated with this restaurant chain. I do admit that I have been a patron at this chain for what its worth or necessary. Regardless I'd thank anyone for their responses and feedback.Fuelsaver (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fuelsaver: ~ Great question~ in order to be on this list the restaurant has to have link to that article ~ so create the article and edit a link from this page to the newly created article ~(with out the https address') ~mitch~ (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well here is what I've made of the potential article to be so far via this link ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fuelsaver/sandbox ). I apologize that it is very bare bones at the moment, but if I can find any other particular significant info about Stevie B's I'll add it. Again, feedback is appreciated. Fuelsaver (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"Chains"? Or just pizzarias?

Some of the alleged "chains" on this list seem to be just individual restaurants -- the oldest, for example: Pepe's. Could find nothing saying they exist at more than a single location.

If this is intended to be a list of chains, the individual restaurants should be removed from the list.

If it's intended to be a list of notable US pizzarias, instead, then the article should be renamed.

So... which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

To add: Silver Dollar Pizza

• Silver Dollar Pizza

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Single restaurant, not a chain. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty Ah, sorry, I just saw that List of pizza chains "includes notable pizzerias and pizza chains", so I assumed the same applied to this "sublist" for the US. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

references

I have tagged this article as needing sources because the quantitative information in it (the number of locations and founding date) is unverifiable without sources. That information, particularly when presented in a sortable list, establishes superlative relationships between all items in the list. (In particular, there's no way to know *when* the location count was established as stores open and close all the time.) The founding location and head office locations are further objective facts that should be made verifiable with references.

Without references, this material should be removed from the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Further, looks like the above conversation reached consensus at the criteria for inclusion to be 15 stores. There are about 18 entries in this list that show less than 15 stores, and none of them are referenced anyway. It's not possible to tell if a chain meets the criteria for inclusion without references, so either the criteria needs to change, the material needs to be removed, or the references should be added. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Per the above I have removed the material for now. Even if it were sourced it would be almost impossible to keep the list up to date. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)