Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chef Works


 * 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. czar 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Chef Works

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG The sources are insufficient: 1: herald sun article doesn't mention the subject 2: passing mention 3: appointment announcement about a company employee 4: passing mention 5: passing mention 6: press release 7: press release 8: press release 9: passing mention Domdeparis (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -  The   Magnificentist  09:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. As per nom, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 12:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G5, G11, TOS violation, content is irrelevant. Rentier (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * hi I don't quite get your comment. What does violation of TOS mean and I don't think the article creator has been blocked there doesn't seem to be anything on their user page. I agree that is was a possible candidate for G11 but I wasn't 100% sure hence my choice of AFD. Domdeparis (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have sent it to AfD too if I wasn't aware of over 140 similar accounts/articles. And my comment couldn't be understood without context, so sorry about that. The article and its creator belong, beyond reasonable doubt, to this group of accounts linked to a previously blocked account (hence G5), which, again beyond reasonable doubt, has been used for undisclosed paid editing (hence Terms of Service violation). Curiously, being at AfD allowed this article to remain live for a few more days, because people have CSDed recent articles from this set. Rentier (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and has not established notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete G5, G11, TOU violation as appears to be written by a paid sock. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 4 August 2017 (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.