Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChefsBest


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

ChefsBest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. Google News archive searches provide many public relations articles and news articles with passing mentions that are about people/companies who have received a Chefs Best Award, but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources about the company itself. Google Books provided this source, which constitutes significant coverage of the topic, but the remaining links just provide passing mentions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - an interesting one. It has all the hallmarks of a "promotional" article but a closer reading suggests it's actually a cleverly disguised attack page. The mention of payment in the introduction without any further analysis of commercial methodology, the suggestion that every product reviewed has been given an award and the use of the word "purports" to qualify an otherwise fairly neutral analysis of methodology all suggest this article has morphed into a "back-handed compliment". The only sources provided are from the company itself, so what from those sources would have encouraged editors to produce a now fairly negative article is unclear. I think the original article was probably created to be promotional but "spam fighters" have now qualified and re-qualified different sections to the point where it is now the total opposite. Very strange. All of that aside, I agree with the nominator that the subject has probably not received enough significant coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart 111  03:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as having only refs to their website and as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:41, 25 November 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.