Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chork


 * 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 Redirect to List_of_eating_utensils, where it is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Chork

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability, all sources seem to be paid content and part of the same introductory media blitz, previously deleted 2007 Apr 23 Dalamori (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to List_of_eating_utensils for now where it can be mentioned. The article is a bit interesting but, unfortunately, it hasn't gotten as much attention as it could be, a few results at News through the years but nothing at Books with a few results at highbeam and one at thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister   talk  06:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per suggestion - only persistent coverage seems to be mention of a restaurant that calls itself the "home of the chork" —Мандичка YO 😜 08:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: A trade term patterned on the "spork." Redirecting is validating the company's commercial aims of increasing product placement and awareness. It is also validating their view that there have never been chopstick-forks before. Delete as commercial promotion. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence that it's not the first chopstick-fork of that design (as opposed to chopsticks with little forks on the end), then please add it to Wikipedia. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the burden of the article, as it's an extraordinary claim? More particularly, it's a marketing claim. Even if it were true -- if no individual person had nowhere and no time made an invention predating this -- preserving a commercial marketing claim is not the business of Wikipedia. Preserving the competitive advantage by redirect seems to violate the reasoning behind no advertising. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. It's clearly got some press, but not the sort of lasting in-depth coverage that merits an article. I'm sure there's some sort of history to be written of attempts to combine chopsticks and western cutlery, but maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2015 (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.