Overturn to no consensus or Allow recreation this is a multi-billion dollar subsidiary owning 4 major chains including Arby's restaurant chain, Buffalo Wild Wings, Rusty Taco and Sonic Drive-In this major corporation has received significant coverage in reliable sources.
Arby's parent company Inspire Brands is creating a fast-food empire.
On September 25, Inspire Brands announced it chewould be acquiring burger chain Sonic for $2.3 billion, including debt. The deal follows Inspire Brands — which is majority owned by private-equity firm
Restaurant conglomerates like Inspire Brands, Restaurant Brands International (parent company of Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes), Yum Brands (parent of Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC), and JAB Holdings (owner of a range of brands including Krispy Kreme, Panera, and Pret A Manger) are on the rise. With the deal, Inspire Brands' portfolio will comprise more than 8,000 locations with combined system sales exceeding $12 billion, according to figures provided by the company.
Inspire Brands, which owns Arby’s and Buffalo Wild Wings, has bought Sonic in a $2.3 billion deal.
The cash deal, which will pay $43.50 for shares of Sonic, will see Sonic become a private company. Sonic boasted $4.4 billion in sales last year, according to Nation’s Restaurant News, besting companies like Dairy Queen, Hardee’s, and Five Guys. That figure is still less than half of Wendy’s sales, though, and just 11% of McDonald’s total sales. For Inspire Brands, the deal checks another box in the company’s diversification strategy. Arby’s is the go-to burger- and chicken-alternative fast food choice for millions of people. Buffalo Wild Wings, which Inspire acquired last year for $2.4 billion, gives it a fast-casual presence that can also draw in sports fans. And Rusty Taco, another holding, lets it compete on a limited basis in the Mexican food space.
Wendy’s announced August 16 that it has accepted an offer from Inspire Brands, the newly named owner of Arby’s, Buffalo Wild Wings, and fast casual R Taco, to sell its 12.3 percent ownership interest back to the company for $450 million. The deal represents a 38 percent premium on Wendy’s previous valuation of the investment, and Wendy’s is expecting about $335 million of cash proceeds net of tax.
“We have benefited from and enjoyed our partnership with Inspire, and we wish Paul Brown and the team continued success in the future," said Todd Penegor, Wendy's president and chief executive officer, in a statement. "The opportunity to monetize our investment in Inspire Brands will allow us to invest in future growth for the Wendy's brand and company, which is our top priority. The flexibility provided by the sale proceeds and the additional share repurchase authorization through 2019 will also allow us to continue to create value for our shareholders."
Brown, formerly the CEO of Arby’s, was named to the same role at Inspire Brands in February, when the company formed following its $2.4 billion purchase of Buffalo Wild Wings. Inspire was co-founded by Neal Aronson, who started Roark Capital Group.
Roark, a private-equity firm that’s portfolio also includes Jim ‘N Nick’s Bar-B-Q, CKE Restaurants (parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s), Corner Bakery, FOCUS Brands (Auntie Anne’s Pretzels, Carvel Ice Cream, Cinnabon, McAlister’s Deli, Moe’s Southwest Grill, and Schlotzsky’s), Il Fornaio, Jimmy John’s, Miller’s Ale House, and Naf Naf Middle Eastern Grill, took a majority stake in Arby’s from Wendy’s in 2011.
Inspire Brands, a private equity backed firm that owns Arby's and Buffalo Wild Wings, is paying nearly 20% more for Sonic than what shares were trading at on Monday. Sonic (SONC) is famous for its quirky ads and retro 1950s-esque drive-in locations. The company also recently joined the wacky fast food trend of launching odd new menu items with its pickle juice slushies.
But the company has been hit by tough competition from the likes of McDonald's (MCD), Burger King and Wendy's (WEN). Sonic's sales at locations open at least a year have been declining for the past few quarters. Inspire, which also owns Rusty Taco, said that nothing major will change at Sonic though. The chain, which has more than 3,600 locations, will be operated as an independent brand.[Four more paragraphs.]
Sonic Corp. said Wednesday that Claudia San Pedro, president of the company since January, will lead the drive-in brand when longtime chairman and CEO Cliff Hudson retires with the expected closing of its sale to Inspire Brands in December.Inspire Brands, parent company of Arby’s, Buffalo Wild Wings and Rusty Taco, agreed in September to buy Sonic for $2.3 billion. Inspire is majority owned by Roark Capital Group, an Atlanta-based private-equity firm.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Inspire Brands to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". These sources were not mentioned during the AfD. Given the significant coverage a standalone article passes our GN guidelines and therefore should be split. Due to editors adamant on maintaining AfD outcome I was forced to DRV this. I have spoken with Cunard (talk·contribs) and SportsFan007 (talk·contribs) Cunard believed db-repost should not apply because of new sources. Mifter (talk·contribs) added a list of sources published after the AfD stating "consensus can change". Serial Number 54129 (talk·contribs) and Spshu (talk·contribs) disagree. I do not believe WP:INHERITORG applies here due to significant coverage in reliable sources.
Comment: It looks like there has been substantial notable activity since the AfD closed in July. I think even the AfD nominator, HighKing, might agree these new articles achieve CORPDEPTH when added to the previous citations. Softlavender (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is forum shopping. There is already a discussion regarding forming a new consensus at Arby's talk page. We were adamant that Valoem wait for a new consensus as their was a prior AFD, which he felt he can over ride on his own with an expected WP:canvassed supporter, then ignore support for the AfD and a new discussion. Admin @Mifter: left us there to form a new consensus.
All these source still stress for the most part that it is Arby's parent company per the quotes and article titles. Arby's is a division of Inspire, the renamed Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., thus Arby's is Inspire. Spshu (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DRV isn't forum-shopping, since it is the only forum (rather than talkpage) attempted. And a handful of editors on an article talkpage cannot legislate the creation/recreation/deletion/creation-protection of an article. At this point anyone could have actually gone ahead and recreated a brand-new, updated article on Inspire Brands, and that would have been acceptable, because it would have been substantially different from the one in July, and would have probably passed any attempts at AfD. Instead of BOLDLY creating a new article, an editor posted here first; they didn't need to, but they chose to. Softlavender (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
/edit conflict/ Source 5 being more about Sonic post-purchase. Thus yes, Valoem has attempted to WP:INHERITORG, since he rattled off the units of Inspire, Arby's, Buffalo Wild Wings, Rusty Tacos and soon Sonic as proof of "notability" and indicates its size in value in violation of inherent notability.
Bad faith on my part? What planet do you live on? Pinging your supporters (Cunard and SportsFan007) on my talk page to tell me you would use them to reset the consensus is canvassing. You ping no one else on my talk page! Bad faith, I did not make you do that.
If is forum shopping, Softlavender. Go read it, a talk page is a forum: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." Spshu (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only discussion I've opened. So your are clearly lying here. You opened a discussion on the talk page with 2 editors in favor of reinstating and 1 administrator citing reasonable cause for reinstating. You cited the AfD result as reason for maintaining the redirect therefore the correct avenue is DRV this is WP:DRVPURPOSE. Any accusation of misbehavior is bad faith. Valoemtalkcontrib20:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that creating an entirely new article with substantial new content would not be a reversion of, or in violation of, the AfD outcome; it would only be a reversion if the article was substantially the same as the old article. The same applies when creating a new article when one has actually been deleted outright -- if the article is substantially the same, it gets CSDed and automatically deleted; if it is substantially different and has new and noteworthy and significantly covered citations, then it must stand for a new AfD before anything happens to it. Softlavender (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely correct Cunard mentioned that due to new sources it does not violated db-repost. However that's how edit wars start. I had the support of SportsFan007, but then Serial Number 54129 jumped in and here we are. Valoemtalkcontrib19:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A. Mifter is an administrator and Mifter told you here to discussion it on the talk page: "Please do not continue reverting each other, you can consider this a notice/warning for edit warning, and discuss here the company's current status and notability." B. This is still another forum (WP:forum shopping). C. Admin do have the power to block you for being disruptive (canvasing, forum shopping). @Mifter:Spshu (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A brief note as I have been mentioned above. My goal, as stated when I declined the request for protection, was to avert an edit war without the use of protection and/or blocks as, in my judgment, I believed with a small push, the reverting might stop and a discussion would occur. Regretfully that goal has not been achieved. In first looking at the article's history, it was clear a discussion concerning if this should be a redirect or article was needed. To try and jumpstart it, I did some quick research for sources, cited back to WP:CCC, and pinged everyone I believed involved. As a discussion had already appeared to have started on the talk page, I left my note and recommended you continue it there, however DRV was a viable option. That being said, as Softlavender has mentioned, the article is very different from what was previously at AfD such that, when combined with the preexisting comments on the talk page, I believed it easier to simply continue it there. Turning to this discussion, while it appears to be pushing along, I fear the combativeness and general animosity, if not de-escalated, will not get anyone to a positive resolution. As I now find myself involved in this matter, I will not act in an administrative capacity, but I strongly encourage you to take a step back and focus on the content itself. Whatever got us here (to DRV, to two articles fully protected, to some editors dangerously close to being blocked, take your pick) is done. What we must now decide is how to move forward. It is clear there are strong opinions and corresponding rationales. Lay them out, participate in the discussion, and don't make it personal. Whatever the outcome ends up being, it is not worth attacking others or being blocked over. Mifter (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mifter: Thank you, I am glad to see that when someone goes through DRV to get a AfD overturned is not see as disruptive. I did not know that Spshu was close to dangerously close to being blocked, but I appreciate the fact that presenting multiple reliable sources is not forum shopping and glad to see administrative enforcement of basic here behavior. Valoemtalkcontrib08:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And some times it is not. Would you tell some women that took her spouses name that she was now some else? No, you would not. Spshu (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add my 2 cents: note that we have separate articles on The Wendy's Company (the owner) and Wendy's (the chain). In this case, it would seem all of 1) article size; 2) actually being separate entities; and 3) (now) having different names, would ex ante be considerations that argue for Inspire Brands and Arby's being separate articles, and now that User:Valoem has IMO identified sufficient sourcing, we should proceed with overturning the deletion and give User:Valoem (and others) the opportunity to add the sources to the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Valoem, rather than reverting and then adding to the article, just create the new expanded article in your sandbox, or make a Draft:Inspire Brands where you and others can work on it, and then replace the redirect with the new expanded article. No one will have the right to redirect a new and greatly expanded article; it would have to go to AfD for that. Softlavender (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender:, in that case, what would prevent an editor from changing it back to a redirect, citing the July 2018 AfD result? If you look at this diff, you see it is already greatly expanded; that is why deletion review is the better process. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The July 2018 AfD result was for the July 2018 article. If the article as it stands now is substantially different, and has new and expanded information, and citations that provide significant coverage in independent RS, then technically the article should stand unless it's renominated for AfD. The problem is, SportsFan007 simply reverted the redirect [1], and then things developed from there, which is decidedly NOT how articles should be recreated. As it is, it might be a good idea to hold off the article (place in draft space) until the Sonic acquisition is complete (presumably years end), because that acquisition, which is not yet a fait accompli, would clinch notability. Softlavender (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself, Valoem. I don't think your combative attitude is going to get you very far. At this point I think your best bet is to draftify until at least after the Sonic acquisition, and until more coverage is found, and then send the draft through RfC. Softlavender (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Please understand I am only being combative to the editor who is accusing me of canvassing in an attempt to derail the conversation. I point out the strength of the sources as independent reliable secondary sources. For example the first source from Business Insider is completely independent and completely dedicated to describing the company and its assets. This is significant coverage. There is already enough coverage for a standalone article. I certain hope you did not think I was being combative toward you. Valoemtalkcontrib22:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2 cents Redirect was a reasonable close given that discussion But given that this company now appears to have enough coverage to meet WP:N (though I can see that as debatable) and IMO it makes little sense to have the owner of (at least) two notable companies be a redirect to one of them. I can't really argue the close was flawed given the discussion, but I do feel that we ended up in a place that doesn't make any sense. Hobit (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was pinged as the original nominator at AfD. I've now looked at the additional sources above. None of those meet the criteria for establishing notability either. Most of those references are based on company announcements or quotations and therefore fail WP:ORGIND as dependent coverage. In others, it is a mention in passing with most of the article devoted to a subsidiary/acquisition. On the basis of those references, this article still fails WP:N. HighKing++ 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are not routine announcements these sources give significant coverage multiple paragraphs describing the company. This is not a routine announcement. Non-notable entities cannot receive this level of coverage in multi-billion dollar acquisitions nor can they make such acquisitions. Valoemtalkcontrib21:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing:, I think you misunderstand WP:ORGIND; Fortune Magazine (#2 above) is certainly independent of the company and enough to establish notability of the company because of independent coverage of something the comany did. Also, if a company is notable under its former name, and then changes its name, we do not require notability to be reestablished under the new name. (this is equivalent to how we handle notable people like Chelsea Manning).UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
UnitedStatesian nope - I don't see any evidence of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Read the Fortune article - what does it say about Inspire? The second sentence says they've bought Sonic. The third details the price per share. Next it is the start of the fourth paragraph which says "the deal checks another box in the company's diversification strategy" - a strategy announced by the company (even covered during the Buffalo acquisition). The article finishes with a quotation from the CEO. I fail to see how anybody can justify this article passes NCORP - it is the very definition of the type of article that we worked to specifically exclude when NCORP was updated earlier this year. HighKing++ 13:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation I think the Afd and its redirect result absurd--the parent of a very notable company that owns other companies also is certain to be notable. This is basic common sense, and we need to interpret our guidelines in accordance with that. If they don't give a reasonable result in a given instance, we can and do make an exception. I think everyone here knows how skeptical I am about sourcing for articles on business firms because of the increasing amount of promotionalism in this area. This seems very clearly good enough in that respect Tjhere's a difference between mere announcements of funding ,and real articles about business relationships. HighKing, with respect to your comment in the AfD about number of sources needed, the requirement for multiple sources is generally used flexibly in both directions--three barely passable sources are not enough; one really good source is. (like the Fortune article in this instance. ) DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I disagree. Notability is not inherited as you know - you're effectively arguing that the parent should inherit notability. That is not common sense. But perhaps you've missed the fact that Inspire is in turn owned by the Roark Capital Group article which passed AfD in July - I agree the current redirect is not normal but it could simply be changed to the parent company. The number of sources needed is generally accepted to be two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability - that's in the guideline too. Finally, the Fortune reference also fails as it is "Dependent coverage" and in my opinion is specifically the type of churnalistic fill-up-the-inches rehashed-announcement type of reference that the tighted-up NCORP guideline was aiming to specifically exclude. HighKing++ 13:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. That was not a consensus to redirect, but an idea. The case for allowing improvement is well made here by the nom, User:Valoem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation in draft space The AfD is settled, since this is a "new information since" DRV, and should be kept as-is and not overturned. I agree with HighKing that the sources above don't really lend themselves to notability due to WP:NCORP. Even the Fortune article is questionable, since it seems like it's parroting a press release. But I don't see any harm in trying to recreate the article at AfC. SportingFlyertalk23:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to wrap my head around where we are and what people think is the best way forward. Right now we've got a company that owns (very) notable companies. And the redirect for the parent company is to one of the companies that it owns? That seems bizarre. If we had an artist who had two notable works we'd not have a redirect for the artist to one of them. In fact I think that's part of the notability criteria for artists just to avoid something like this. I don't see how we can be happy with the status quo. There is clearly enough to write an article about this company even if you don't think WP:N is met (which I clearly disagree with, but eh). Even if it didn't meet WP:N I'd argue we should at least have a stub. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AfC and draftspace is optional. Any autoconfirmed editor may move a draft to mainspace, if in their sole judgement it is suitable for mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no harm in allowing someone to create a draft about a topic which may or may not be notable and have someone move it if they think it passes. Better than creating an article that may not pass in mainspace and then having to AfD it. SportingFlyertalk06:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation most of the sources presented above weren't presented in the AfDed version (and many weren't even published at the time), so the AfD result can't be used to stop people writing an article based on them. It can be sent to AfD again if people feel that way. I agree with those above that the AfD result and redirect don't make much sense, if a company owns several major restaurant brands then it is very likely to be notable and I don't see why we'd want to redirect the title to an article about one of those brands. Hut 8.520:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation.Inspire Brands has new information since the 29 July 2018 AfD closure:
On August 16, 2018, The Wendy's Company announced that it sold its 12.3% stake in Inspire Brands back to Inspire Brands for $450 million, which includes a 38% premium over its stake most recent valuation.
On September 25, 2018, Inspire Brands announced that it was buying Oklahoma City-based Sonic Drive-In for $2.3 billion. The firm expects that the acquisition should be completed by the end of the year.
Change the Redirect to Roark Capital Group since that is the parent company. I don't see why only two choices were presented here either. The new references do not meet the criteria and most of the arguments in relation to "but there's new sources" are referring to more press releases. With respect to the above I've yet to see any argument that can point out why the new references pass WP:ORGIND or are not "dependent coverage" and Valoem's references are mainly based on press releases and are therefore classed as "Dependent Coverage". Even Cunard's logic above fails to see that when something says "Inspire Brands announced..." that it therefore fails as a reference that can be used to establish notability since it is "dependent coverage". HighKing++ 13:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Inspire Brands was Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. and is more associated via sources as Arby's parent company not Roark Capital Group. Spshu (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
