Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Café Amazon


 * 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 keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Café Amazon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication this passes WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. No sources beyond primary press releases and their reprints about WP:ROUTINE business activities. On the other hand, there is an unreferenced claim about this operating 2,700 outlets. Size is not a criteria specified in our policies, but it has been argument that has been sufficient to make some people vote keep. What about this case? Is this big enough to be encyclopedic? (And should NCOMPANY be revised to support such an argument)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Some news coverage: This news piece about different brand (but same owner as Cafe Amazon) but gives the number of Cafe Amazon branches at 2700 . This one puts the number at 2800 branches . More news, ,  Those are national broadsheet newspapers. The company got regular coverage in business news. There are many more news for incidences involved in the cafe that every paper newspaper carried them. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding sources for the list of branches. I hope we can keep this as I generally think that anything with hundreds or thousands of branches should have an article here but WP:ITSUSEFUL is not sufficient. The news pieces you find are a good start, but for example the last one is WP:INTERVIEW that reads like rewritten PR piece (problem with a lot of lower quality 'news' outlets). And a look at the other sources suggests they share the same problem (being more like rewritten PR pieces, or as in the case of NASDAQ one, pure PR). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Bangkok Post piece [5] linked by Lerdsuwa above is presented in the reporter's own words, with additional research and sourcing that brings it beyond what could be considered "churnalism". Looking at some Thai sources (discounting PR reporting), Weekend Manager covers the subject as part an article exploring the competition in the field. This has been explored in detail in a market research piece by Marketeer, which I don't have access to, but was mentioned by one of Thairath&apos;s main columnists. Former Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij has publicly questioned the legality of their operations, and this was also widely reported on. Brandbuffet.com has independent analysis of its brand image, Marketingoops.com has its own analysis of franchising costs, as well as coverage of its competition with Starbucks. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2019 (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.