Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chai Point


 * 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. Salvio 12:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Chai Point

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. WP:NCORP, and WP:SIGCOV. Hence, Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Every reference fails to verify any notability. One os from the principal, one at least an interview with the CEO and the remainder are PR pieces. Even the review of a cup of chai feels like a PR piece. Fiddle   Faddle  12:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ab207 (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources provided below, article can now be improved. --Ab207 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly falls under WP:PROMO. Does its best to avoid WP:Puffery but per nom seemingly created only for self-promotion. Wampagranule (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 21:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The approach to this Afd is entirely misguided in my opinion. Yes, the article currently looks bullshit (their chai is even worse, trust me), but the company is clearly notable, as I was able to find independent in-depth reliable sources (not the trashy Paid Posts or press releases etc). This Business Standard report calls it "India's largest organized tea retailer". Here's The Ken profile that says it is India's largest tea cafe with 141 stores (numbers usually don't matter for notability but given the extensive reach in a country with a largely home-chai-drinking tradition, the network alone is noteworthy). Here's a Bloomberg Quint story about how they're trying to create a tea cafe culture in India, along with another very popular outlet Chaayos (which has slightly better tea imo!). Here's a The Hindu story on their AI features by an indy reporter as far as I can tell. Same with Livemint, Financial Express, Economic Times. Yes, the usual PR guff might exist, but separate the wheat from the chaff and reliable sources can very easily be found. I've just cited a fraction. Given that it's the largest tea network in India (ignoring the millions of street-side vendors who make infinitely better tea - just saying if you're ever visiting), and that significant and third-party reliable sources can be found (I'm amazed how they didn't turn up in the nom's or voters' searches!), the subject tremendously, justifiably, absolutely and surely passes GNG, NCORP, SIGCOV! If it sounds PROMOTIONAL, then it needs to be fixed. Not deleted. Best regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I fully agree with the above assessment. If there is feedback on quality, those need to be added as tags for editors to update. No reason why that can not be done in parallel. Ktin (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I've struck my original vote based on MaysinFourty's contribution. I made a rash decision based on a cursory search, so thanks for doing your research a lot better than I did. I'd now support an overhaul of the sourcing on the page, fixing the promotional element. Wampagranule (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Of course, the subject of the article is notable. A simple Google search reveals it to be the case. If it seems promotional, it should be modified and improved, not deleted. Stensrim (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2020 (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.