Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Food Recipe


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  09:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Asia Food Recipe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Errm, what does "Queried speedy delete" mean, and why is it a reason for deletion? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nomination may simply mean "challenged speedy deletion".  The article is about a recipe hosting website, and is referenced entirely to press releases and self-published material. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Article does contain link to objective source which gives the company notariety. They are the largest food recipe upload site in Asia and also allow YouTube uploads (unlike other recipe site). There are less notable articles on Wikipedia including AfroFoodtv.com Cookin' with Coolio Epicurious FoodPair RecipeBridge Yummly --Morning277 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As stated above, the article is sourced only to press releases, and is essentially promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional citations added. I think if anything, the article should receive a notability tag but not deleted. The topic is noteworthy and should be left so that people can expand upon the article. Additions can be found here: 1 2 --Morning277 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not just that it's cited only to its own press releases, it's the same release but cited as if each is a different one. Blatant self-promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sourced to press releases, so self-promoting content - no reliable sources listed. The user added additional refs after the above comments, which are simply additional press releases and a trivial mention - so those didn't fix the root problem of only being sourced to self-published material and trivial mentions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Just because your press releases show up on other websites does not make them WP:RS. Delete, add salt and/or MSG ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I am looking for additional sources. However, the press release is not mine. The only connection that I have to site is that I use it. I found some additional information about a controversy with the website but I am still trying to find sources that confirm it. --Morning277 (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional Information Added - Made a couple of additions to the article. 1, 2 Not sure if this leads more towards notability. I would appreciate a little more insight on what would make it notable for Wikipeida. I am not associated with this website other than using it. I created the aritlce (as I have done with other articles) on topics that I come across that are interesting. I believed that it being the largest recipe submission cite in Asia would make it notable. Any additional guidance that can be given would be appreciated. --Morning277 (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What you need is to meet the general notability guideline i.e. it needs non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources you've found so far don't really cut it. Two are press releases so fail any form of independence, the one you've added is a links site, saying it's listed there doesn't really mean much, it doesn't provide in depth coverage and it's unlikely to meet the standard of being a reliable source (Also see WP:BIGNUMBER). Other assertions you've added to the article which aren't cited to a reliable source aren't particularly useful. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Morning, I reverted both of your edits. The first adds unsourced material. The second relies on an unreliable source, and even if the source were more reliable, the assertion is misleading based on what the sourced website claims it does.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. I looked, but didn't find any sources not based on PRWEB press releases. Since there seem to be no available independent, reliable and verifiable sources for the assertions in the article, the article fails the guidelines. Geoff  Who, me?  22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - Can we steamroll this thing already? I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I truly believed that this article was more noteworthy. As the majority dissents from my opinion, there is no need to waste anymore of the admin's time. Thanks to everyone for the comments and advice and I will resurrect the article at a later date if it every becomes more notable. Until then, thank you and let's close this thing out for the sake of allowing everyone to take care of more important Wiki issues.  --Morning277 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.