Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lam Yeo Coffee Powder Factory


 * 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 no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, but no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired. North America1000 02:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Lam Yeo Coffee Powder Factory

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Reviewed as a part of new page patrol. I wish them the best but this is a local coffee shop. It is about the business, so the higher bar of ncorp (vs geo) applies but I don't think that it would even meet a lower bar. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or Ncorp. Sources are local reviews. North8000 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Would that then mean that anything from Singapore would have to receive international coverage to be considered notable enough? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I never gave "local" as my basis. The basis would be the source and coverage requirements under WP:Ncorp.  North8000 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: To be exact, Lam Yeo Coffee Powder Factory is not a coffee shop (aka cafes and stuff) but a coffee beans retailer. Article passes GNG with sources/coverage in Singapore's mainstream media, The Straits Times and The Business Times, and also South China Morning Post. It is also part of the Balestier Heritage Trail of Singapore, one of the few trails in Singapore which marked heritage landmarks in various parts of Singapore. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , you said that Lam Yeo Coffee Powder passes Notability. Notability (organizations and companies) is another notability guideline that is specifically about companies. Your argument for retention would be substantially stronger if you evaluated whether the company also met the company notability guidelines. Would you review the analysis I have posted below and provide your opinion about whether the company meets Notability (organizations and companies)? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore.  Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 02:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm neutral on this one, I have trouble assessing notability but I also don't really see much indication it isn't notable. It's probably semi-notable if that's even a thing. I don't have a particularly strong preference for Delete or Keep. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 02:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The Straits Times is the newspaper of record of Singapore. Coverage in the newspaper of record of Singapore meets Notability (organizations and companies), which says: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The article notes: "If there was one shop along Balestier Road which could offer that special something to perk up your spirits any time, any day, it would be No. 328. Here, for $2 per 100g, roasted beans get crushed into brown-black powder before being pumped into boiling water. Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room. Ah, coffee. Not from Starbucks, UCC or Lavazza, but Singapore's own Lam Yeo Coffee Powder. The name of the store is a Hokkien translation of the word Nanyang, for South Sea. Since 1959, it has been dispensing its 10 signature blends of coffee harvested from various parts of Indonesia to Singapore's coffee-philes."  The article provides three paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Hokkien name Lam Yeo translates to Nanyang in Mandarin, meaning “South Sea”. The shop’s coffee powder business started in 1959, when Tan Thian Kang began selling the coffee beans door-to-door, before setting up shop in Balestier in 1960. The same shop still exists today and second-generation owner Tan Bong Heong continues to roast the local coffee beans with margarine and sugar the way his father did. [quote from owner]"   The article provides nine paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder stands facing the frenetic waves of traffic along Balestier Road. Passing cars stir up the dust outside its shopfront, a relic from a Singapore of old, when a generation of coffee drinkers brewed their morning cuppa in a sock-like strainer rather than a Nespresso machine. Lam Yeo is Hokkien for "Nanyang" and since the late 1950s, it has been trading in Nanyang-style coffee beans and grounds on the very same premises. Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop."   The article provides 174 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "A sepia-toned vision of coffee culture, this stalwart has been purveying its kopi blends – the uniquely Singaporean concoction of beans roasted with margarine and sugar – since 1959. Not much has seemed to change since then. Vintage coffee grinders still sit on the shelves." </li> <li> The book provides 78 words of coverage about the company. The book notes: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder. Owner Tan Peck Hoe retains the long-standing tradition of roasting coffee beans with sugar and margarine to give them that lusciously black exterior unique to local coffee. While his traditional coffee powder remains an old favourite, Mr Tan has also adapted and started importing gourmet beans from South Africa and Central America. These are roasted plain and ground only upon purchase to ensure freshness" </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lam Yeo Coffee Powder to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Comment Both GNG and NCorp require that there be some significant in-depth coverage is some suitable sources. You don't get to this by adding together a lot of "reviews" type coverages. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "review" type coverage. Most of the sources cover the company because it is a traditional coffee shop, and it is also included in the Balestier Heritage Trail here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By "review coverage" I mean the kind of thing you see in Yelp. Basically information on offerings and ratings/recommendations for visitors and prospective visitors.  In-depth coverage would be where independent sources have seen fit to give broader coverage.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete First lets pick the appropriate guideline, this is a company/business so WP:NCORP applies and we need at least two references that discuss the company *in detail* - that is, deep or significant coverage containing in-depth information. WP:SIRS emphasises that each reference must meet all the necessary criteria - you can't mix-and-match or combine from different references. In other words, we need more than confirmation that the company exists at a particular address, the history/meaning of its name and the price it charged for coffee nevermind whatever opinion the author has on the beverage - that is neither significant nor in-depth. It is notable that Cunard's analysis above references WP:GNG instead of NCORP so when we examine those sources against the actual guidelines we should be using, a different picture emerges. First, lets keep in mind the information that is available on the topic company's own website which can be found here.
 * There's no argument that The Straits Times meets WP:RS but being a "newspaper of record" does not give the reference any additional weight and is a red herring. I haven't access right now but the extracted text provided is lightweight and is not in-depth. Basically, confirms the location, describes how coffee is made (big deal) and tells us absolutely nothing in-depth about this company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * The South China Morning Post article describes five "traditional Singapore bakeries, and a coffee shop" and among the mentions we find the topic company. The extract provided by Cunard is 3 sentences from the total of 7 sentences available in the complete section on the topic company. Ridiculous to say it meets CORPDEPTH especially when you can clearly see all of the information in the quoted extract has been copied from their website and precedes the information quoted from the the company/owner. This is not "Independent Content" as per ORGIND and is not in-depth as per CORPDEPTH.
 * The Business Times reference does two things - just like the rest of the references, the information about *the company* is entirely available on the website sprinkled with new quotes from the owner. The extract from Cunard above confirms the location and the history of the name, nothing more. The article also adds in the journalist's impression of the inside of the shop (e.g. Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop. Burlap sacks of coffee beans pile up against plywood shelves sagging under the weight of coffee pots, strainers and cups. In the middle of the shop floor, three prized traditional hand-grinders glint atop containers of coffee beans ... etc) but that isn't in-depth on the company either. The reference has no in-depth information that is "Independent Content" as required by WP:ORGIND.
 * The Peak Magazine reference looks at 3 "food outlets" in the Balestier neighbourhood including a total 12 sentences on the topic company. Like the previous references, it confirms the location, describes the inside and then switches to quotes from the owner. It has no "Independent Content" and no in-depth information about the company. The extract from Cunard is lightweight, repeating the date the company started (1959) which appears in every other article and the website and includes the fact that the shop has coffee grinders on shelves - nothing that is in-depth.
 * The Book reference which Cunard notes is not 78 words but the text is in fact a total of 3 sentences for 64 words. The entire reference has been duplicated by Cunard above, and while there's no "minimum length" of article discussed in the guidelines, I think we're on safe ground to conclude 3 sentences is not "in-depth".
 * Overall, the area itself, Balestier, is notable and perhaps a "Places of Interest" section can be added to that article. But this topic company fails NCORP's notability criteria. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Lam Yeo Coffee Powder passes Notability (organizations and companies) through coverage in The Straits Times and The Business Times:

<ol>
 * <li></li>
 * <li></li>

</ol>
 * Notability (organizations and companies) says: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.  Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization."
 * Notability (organizations and companies) says: There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources:
 * Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.
 * Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
 * I will show that these two sources meet the "significant coverage" and "independent sources" sections of Notability (organizations and companies).

<ol>
 * <li>The Straits Times article provides 929 words of coverage about the subject. The Straits Times is a newspaper of record for Singapore. Coverage in the newspaper of record of Singapore meets Notability (organizations and companies). Additionally, Notability (organizations and companies) says, "However, the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent." The Straits Times's strong reputation as a newspaper of record strongly bolsters the argument that it is an independent and reliable source. The article has "functional independence" because the newspaper and the author are unrelated to the company. The article has "intellectual independence" because it contains "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".  The article begins, "If there was one shop along Balestier Road which could offer that special something to perk up your spirits any time, any day, it would be No. 328." This is the journalist's independent opinion about the shop. The article continues, "Here, for $2 per 100g, roasted beans get crushed into brown-black powder before being pumped into boiling water. Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room." This is the journalist's observations of what it's to visit the shop: what can be seen, what can be smelled, and what can be felt. The article continues that the shop uses "10 signature blends of coffee harvested from various parts of Indonesia to Singapore's coffee-philes". This is independent reporting of where the shop sources its coffee from. The article continues, "For all the freshness of his coffee, Mr Tan's shop wears the air of a place where time has stood still out of boredom, routine and age. An ancient abacus lies, its beads rubbed down over time, on a table with a peeling formica top. Sacks of coffee beans and coffee powder, imported every month from Indonesia, strain tired plywood shelves." This more in-depth analysis of her observations in the shop. </li>
 * <li>The Business Times article provides 584 words of coverage about the subject. The article has "functional independence" because the newspaper and the author are unrelated to the company. The article has "intellectual independence" because it contains "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". The article begins: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder stands facing the frenetic waves of traffic along Balestier Road. Passing cars stir up the dust outside its shopfront, a relic from a Singapore of old, when a generation of coffee drinkers brewed their morning cuppa in a sock-like strainer rather than a Nespresso machine." Calling Lam Yeo Coffee Powder "a relic from a Singapore of old" is independent analysis of the company and provides societal context about the earlier history of the company. The article later notes: "Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop. Burlap sacks of coffee beans pile up against plywood shelves sagging under the weight of coffee pots, strainers and cups. In the middle of the shop floor, three prized traditional hand-grinders glint atop containers of coffee beans, browned to varying degrees. The grinders have been there since the shop's humble beginnings and were originally bought from a Singaporean manufacturer, Zhi Min Zao, which has now ceased operations." This is very in-depth analysis of the journalist's observations of what the shop looks like. None of this information is based on the shop's website. Several other paragraphs discuss the company's early history and how it was passed from father to son. This is independent reporting that the journalist gathered through her research. That some facts about the company's history (such as its being founded in 1959 and that Lam Yeo is Hokkien for "Nanyang") are present on the company's website does not mean the article is non-independent. These are important facts about the company that any article discussing its history should always include. </li>

</ol>
 * Through these two sources alone, Lam Yeo Coffee Powder meets Notability (organizations and companies). The coverage in the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post is not needed for the company to meet the notability guidelines. Although brief, it demonstrates that the shop has received international attention which most local shops never receive. The brief article from ThePeak is also not needed for the company to meet the notability guidelines. I am citing it here because the author provided independent opinion about what he observed the shop to be like when she visited. She called it "A sepia-toned vision of coffee culture". Cunard (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Response If I've understood you correctly, you're saying that a journalist's "observations" (the Straits Times) about what can be "seen" and "smelled" in the shop constitutes "in-depth analysis" of the company? And that the information about how many "signature blends" are available is in-depth even though that info is repeated in nearly all the references and is available on their website"? Or again in the "Business Times" you're saying that the journalist observations about the shop constitutes "very in-depth analysis"? Nonsense. That's trivial reporting by any definition. I'll leave it to others to make up their own minds but those articles are neither "deep" nor "significant" which is the criteria we require. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Lam Yeo Coffee Powder is a coffee shop. The journalists visited it to do a review of the shop. The journalists shared their observations and opinions of what it was like to be in the shop. Their reviews constitute "independent commentary" about the subject so establish notability under Notability (organizations and companies). As part of their reporting, the journalists conducted "independent fact-checking" and "independent research" into the shop through their discussion of its history. I do not view the information as being copied from the subject. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are both functionally independent and intellectually independent of the subject to meet Notability (organizations and companies) and Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO that does not meet the letter or intent for the type and depth of coverage required. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources meet both the letter and intent for the type and depth of coverage required under the guideline. From Notability (organizations and companies): "Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources." The journalists "personall experienced" or visited the coffee shop "and describ[e] their experiences in some depth [and] provid[e] broader context" about the shop's history. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Response First, NCORP guidelines are for topics about companies/organizations *or* products/services. You don't use a product "review" to establish notability of the company and vice versa which is what you appear to be saying. The topic of this article is the company, not the "product". Second, even if that was OK, the "product" of this company is not the experience of walking into the shop, but I imagine its actually coffee. It would be akin to saying that someone's experience in the flagship Apple store in NYC counts as a review of the iPhone 11 and therefore Apple is notable. That is neither the letter nor the intent of NCORP guidelines. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability (organizations and companies) includes restaurants so as a coffee shop, Lam Yeo Coffee Powder is within scope. I quoted the guideline to show that the guideline supports using journalists' personal experiences and observations in establishing notability for products. Just as a restaurant review that discusses a restaurant's ambience and history constitutes significant coverage so too does a coffee shop review that discusses the coffee shop's ambience and history establish notability. There is no basis to say that the 929-word article in The Straits Times and a 584-word article in The Business Times that contain original commentary and independent reporting do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, a coffee shop is not the same as a restaurant and is not covered - if it was, the guidelines would qualify the scope of businesses covered by "restaurant" to include all manner of establishments. But even if for argument's sake we agree to use that part of the guideline (which I don't), the article still doesn't establish notability. The guideline says that the review must be significant where the reviewer as personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Where's all that? Where, for example, is the description of the author's experience sipping the famous beverage and comparing to a Starbucks or whatever? There's nothing in either of those references that meets the criteria so by your own selected section of NCORP guidelines, the references fail WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From The Straits Times, "Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room. Ah, coffee. Not from Starbucks, UCC or Lavazza, but Singapore's own Lam Yeo Coffee Powder." Cunard (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Nothing in that even suggests a single drop passed the reviewers lips. And mentioning other famous coffee brands does not qualify as drawing comparisons. That's not even a review, never mind a significant review. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I don't see the in-depth coverage required for NCORP. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 14:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with applying the high bar of NCORP in general compared to what we'd apply to restaurants. The coverage presented here is sufficient to indicate notability. On the subject of notability not being inherited from product reviews, this is true, but not entirely relevant. If a company's product is notable, we should either have an article on the company, the product, or both. It would not make sense to have a standalone article on this company's product (Coffee powder produced by Lam Yeo Coffee Powder Factory); it simply makes more sense to have an article on the company instead. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is well said, especially regarding when to create a company or product article. Thank you, . Cunard (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per analyzing and sources providing by Cunard and reasoning by Elli.ZanciD (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.