Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munaf Kapadia


 * 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. Editors disagree whether the identified sources are indeed significant, reliable, or independent, or whether some of them are not intellectually independent as they are just parroting PR, meaning that WP:GNG is not met. The discussion has already been open more than a week and I don't think that the arguments are going to change significantly if the debate remains open longer. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Munaf Kapadia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:ARTSPAM, does fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG, looks further like COI Editing, had been created directly after article for his book (also at AfD) had been tagged for not being notable CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, states straight facts about the person supported by citations from mainstream media. "looks further like COI" is baseless allegation and has nothing to do with the article itself. being created after a book that is in AfD shouldn't be the reason of nominating this one. The reasons aren't justified and are worded to make it sound like they are legit. Dial911 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Effectively WP:ADMASQ from a google marketing executive, who won a reality series. The Forbes X of Y is non-RS. Introduced to advertise the book. The coverage, what is there, seems to come almost from a single source and simply due to the fact that he was Google guy, now he runs a shop. All of it is seems to startup fare.   scope_creep Talk  17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep there is continuous coverage about him from 2016/2017 till 2021, in mainstream papers of more than one country (India, Pakistan, UK and might be more). Forbes 30 under 30 is also a claim of significance. Dial911 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Forbes used to put more than 1400 lists of X of Y every year. They are non-RS.   scope_creep Talk  17:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep, A person is significantly talked about continuously in mainstream papers of several countries. How are they not notable? He founded something that is being widely talked about, he won a TV reality show, he is Forbes 30 under 30. all of this is supported by several (google news will gibe literally 100 sources) papers. Dial911 (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any reason to suspect COI here as the author has been around for almost four years and has created several articles India authors and their books. Rather than someone promoting a book/author I just see someone with an interest in Indian authors/books continuing to act consistently. Also as the only source written after the book is the source for the book I also fail to see this as marketing the book via the press. KylieTastic (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @KylieTastic, I came across the book and eventually saw this person's huge continuous coverage for what he is doing. So thought of creating his stub. editors are suspecting my timeline of creating this article with COI. Whereas, I did not even know about this guy until I read about him a few days ago. also, he has coverages in newspapers since early 2016, a time when I didn't even know I would join Wikipedia. Dial911 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG. --Gazal world (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete pending a detailed review of the sources (which I might or might not do):
 * The article should speak for itself without the need for the reader or the reviewer to check the sources. The article does not, as written, persuade the reader or reviewer that there has been significant coverage.
 * The article does not comply with the second pillar of Wikipedia. Trimming might not leave much.
 * Adding references to a stub results in a well-referenced stub. Stubs are only notable if they show ipso facto notability, and this one does not.
 * Delete . The several sources only meet the GNG on a very superficial assessment, but they fail on independence. They are promotional, even puff pieces, all written with the cooperation of the subject.  This is revealed by inclusion of information that can only have come from the subject, and promotional photography, and the lack of critical commentary. None of the sources are written from a distinct perspective, they are all too close. In the end, the article is purely promotional. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep on detailed analysis of Cunard sources, I find 2 in the first 4 to pass as GNG-compliant sources. I want to grumble a bit that Cunard is not rigorous with source independence and throws a lot of sources that are hard work to analyse.  However, Cunard's style doesn't weaken the subjects claim to Wikipedia-notability.
 * My source analysis working down Cunard's list:
 * 1 "He decided to host a dining experience at home".  Unsourced.  This information came from him.  Not independent. It is all quotes and comment that only the subject would know. Every paragraph.  Behind his eyes perspective.  Not even close to independent.
 * 2 By Shazma Khan 18 Jul 2017. Lots of paragraphs are non-independent.  Some may be independent comment.  "Initiated back in 2014, the restaurant was a weekend pop-up store in which he invited people over for a paid meal, reported Tech Juice. Now, the venture has progressed into a full-blown central kitchen" reads as independent comment by Khan, referring to information taken from "Tech Juice"  The following paragraphs read as independent comment from a distant perspective.  I call this a GNG-pass.
 * 3 Written by Pooja Pillai Updated: May 6, 2018.  All facts and quotes from the subject, every paragraph.  Fails as a GNG source.
 * 4 Rashmi Pratap Updated on March 10, 2018.  The seven introductory paragraphs are not about the subject and so ignore them.  Munaf Kapadia then is heaviliy features and quoted, however, the article is about the food style.  It is not primarily promoting Kapadia or his restarant (The Bohri Kitchen), and so I do not call it a GNG-fail.
 * That's two GNG-passing sources. Clearly, he self promotes, but self promotion does not detract from notability.  Keep.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete — Per rationale by & . Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Celestina007 Consider new rationale by @SmokeyJoe? Dial911 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Forbes fails WP:RS. more than one remaining references is PR or regurgitated PR. This feels very WP:TOOSOON though he has managed some RS coverage, eg from the BBC. I see a decent hardworking chap, either WP:ROTM or WP:BLP1E at present. Perhaps his samosa business might be notable, but I don't see him as notable yet. There is nothing in the short text that says to me "THIS is why he is notable." So change my mind and tell me you have done so. If you succeed I will change my opinion here.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent I think he is more than just a samosa seller. He is trying to keep a culture alive that was long forgotten in India. He started something that is getting wider recognition each year, with celebrities, media and common people reaching out. That was the motivation behind creating his stub. Having international mainstream media coverage was another reason to create his stub here. He has been written about from 2017 till present. Dial911 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * An article about him on Wikipedia would give our readers information about it, just like other articles give information on all kinds of stuff. It's not like this Wikipedia entry would boost his sales or advertise / grow his business or get him huge media attention - because he is getting that already and in plenty of amounts. Dial911 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dial911 You are standing too close to this article to see the issue. He is interesting but that does not confer notability upon him. Show he passes relevant notability criteria in the article and it will be a pleasure to change my opinion. Arguing about it will not achieve that. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article provides biographical background about the subject: "He pursued a BBA degree in Marketing from Narsee Monjee College of Commerce and Economics in Mumbai from 2006-2009. Soon after, he finished an MBA degree from Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies. Fresh out of college in 2011, Munaf worked with Wrigley’s as a management trainee and became one of the few area Managers in the country."   The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, who decided to turn his mother’s recipe into a brand, is a 28-year-old Muslim residing in Mumbai, India. An MBA graduate, Munaf got a job offer from Google after working for a few years in India. ... Quitting his job at Google, Munaf started ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in India with the idea of keeping his mother Nafisa busy. ... This is not a regular restaurant, it had gained so much popularity that the restaurant is one of the favorites among renowned Indian celebrities including Rani Mukerjee and Farah Khan."   The article notes: "Kapadia, 29, who was then working at Google, emailed his friends asking if anyone would pay for a traditional Bohri meal at his house in Colaba. The email got circulated and soon he had his first customer who brought her friends for a meal at his place."   The article notes: "And it is planning about positioning that has helped Munaf. TBK is a brand well known through social media. It is on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and Munaf actively updates his contacts on TBK’s menu as well as future plans on various media. The increase in visibility and demand led him to open a kitchen in Worli from where he supplies Bohri food for delivery."  <li> The article notes: "The Kapadias are a typical Bohri family who love their food, and with Nafisa being a great cook, Munaf had been toying with the idea of showcasing her talent and his community’s food for a few years. One morning, while he asked her his ritual question, it struck him that what sounded so normal to him might sound exotic to anyone who doesn’t know about their food. ... This was 10 months ago, and in the short period since, their popularity has soared. Bringing their food and concept outside Mumbai for the first time, TBK has collaborated with Ashvita Bistro to bring the same experience to Chennai this weekend, with lunch and dinner menus." </li> <li> The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, founder of the hugely successful The Bohri Kitchen that in five years, hosted close to 4,000 home diners on weekends and at its peak in 2019 was delivering 1,000 biryanis a day across Mumbai, writes in “How I Quit Google To Sell Samosas” (HarperCollins)." </li> <li> The article notes: "The guy who quit Google to sell samosas has now written a book titled… yep, you guessed it: How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas. Munaf Kapadia’s story of starting The Bohri Kitchen (TBK)—a unique home-dining experience designed around the culinary traditions of the Dawoodi Bohra community—is the stuff of social media lore. That is because Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story." </li> <li> The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia, who belongs to the Bohri Muslim community, and his mother began offering home-cooked meal experiences to guests in 2014." </li> <li> The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia completed his MBA from Mumbai’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies and worked for four years as an Account Strategist at Google India before establishing ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in 2014." </li> <li> The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia runs a successful 'pop up' restaurant at his family's home in Mumbai. His mother also works as head chef." </li> <li> The article notes: "His parents were initially apprehensive, but they started supporting him once he and TBK started getting attention from the media and Bollywood. ... Popular names in the Mumbai film industry, such as directors Farah Khan and Ashutosh Gowarikar, started visiting his home." </li> <li> The article notes: "What started out as a weekend project inviting people home to try his mother’s food in 2014, has fast expanded into a business model with a delivery kitchen and catering business. So much so that Munaf decided to leave his job at Google where he handled a $10 million portfolio to sell mutton kheema samosas instead." </li> <li> The article notes: "In one stroke Munaf Kapadia, a former Google employee, did four things. First, he exposed his mother’s culinary skills to the world. Second, he popularised his community’s Bohri cuisine in Mumbai, third, he gave foodies a go-to dining spot, and the fourth and best part - he made a lot of money out of all this." </li> <li> The article notes: "In 2015, Munaf Kapadia, an MBA graduate who was working with Google, decided to keep his mother Nafisa away from daily soaps on TV by starting a food project. The Kapadias belong to the Bohri community, who are popular for their lip-smacking thaal (a platter that consists of everything from mutton samosas, nargis kebabs, dabba gosht, kaari chawal and much more)." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Munaf Kapadia to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Munaf Kapadia has received international coverage in the BBC and in Arab News. He received significant coverage in major Indian publications like Business Line, The Economic Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express, and Mint. He received sustained significant coverage in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021. Regarding editors' comments about the article's being spam, I agree with that "I don't see any reason to suspect COI here as the author has been around for almost four years and has created several articles India authors and their books." I reviewed the article and found it neutrally written.  Regarding editors' comments about the independence of the sources, the sources include quotes from the subject but there is also substantial commentary and reporting.  Regarding editors' comments about the article not demonstrating sufficient notability, per Notability, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."  Cunard (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Uhhh... most of the listed sources are self-published ones, starting with the first one which cites directly from the own Book of the subject.... CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles I linked may quote from the subject of the article but they contain independent commentary and reporting. The sources are published by newspapers and companies not affiliated with the subject. The sources are not Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It is disingenuous and egregious to say that the companies and newspapers are not connected or affiliated with the subject. No company or newspaper is connected to anybody apart from their readers and the people that work there. What does connect them is advertising and this is a case of Google advertising executive gaming the system, in what is essentially a WP:BLP1E event. It is exact same news on every site, with him standing there holding a samosa, or holding the tray, or standing next to his mother. Here is one here, with him standing with his samosa: https://theshillongtimes.com/2021/05/02/up-close-and-personal-munaf-kapadia-the-bohri-kitchen-story/ and written by By Agencies, coming from his book. Certainly from an external viewpoint, it looks like promotional advertising for marketing, and if it was creating sufficient waves the BBC would have picked it up. Even the Arab News, which is well down the list of reliable news,  will print your news: ]. Here is the For this MBA graduate mom’s cooking skills helped build a Rs 4 crore turnover eatery chain leaving a cushy job and on the photo: Munaf Kapadia quit a high-paying job at Google to focus on his food chain, The Bohri Kitchen (Photos: Special Arrangement). Another marketing story. At that point in the marketing scheme, his book has not written,  so all the references which are before April 2021, don't have the book image, the ones after that day have the image. Certainly at the beginning that would be special interest in him quitting Google, hence the reason it was picked up by the BBC. Nobody outside IT knows what Google does, so there is a special interest. But all the coverage that, is artificial, and you start to see him with his tray and then the samosas and his mother, then the books.  The whole thing is a scheme to promote and market the business.    scope_creep Talk  13:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at this: This MBA graduate quit his job at Google to sell mutton samosas The well-known bastion of truth and honour. Created by Text: Priyanka Nair, ETBrandEquity.   scope_creep Talk  13:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Selling samosas in a pandemic It says it is an advertisement.   scope_creep Talk  13:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * * Munaf Kapadia: From selling ads at Google to selling samosas at The Bohri Kitchen Holding his tray and his book and his mum. Where would the week get the images?   scope_creep Talk  13:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Read BLP1E policy, it says, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals. And when you read who is a low profile individual, it says, "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." I can safely deduce that this person is not a low profile individual because he has been getting significant continuous, international media coverage in RS from 2016 to 2021. BLP1E argument isn't valid here. Dial911 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is the reference that Cunard used on the book: [Munaf Kapadia: From selling ads at Google to selling samosas at The Bohri Kitchen] which is a classic case of constructed PR. In the opening paragraph it states:
 * That is because Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story. The whole lot is PR.   scope_creep Talk  21:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Reputable publications frequently include photos of the subjects they report on. From this guide from the BBC, "Newspapers get their photographs from these main sources:" (1) "A photographer goes to the scene of a story to get the best possible photographs", (2) "Photographs provided by members of the public", and (3) "Photographs from news agencies such as Reuters and the Press Association". That these publications have images of Munaf Kapadia retrieved through one of these methods does not invalidate the sources from being independent reliable sources. The book review in The Week said, "Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story". This is commentary from a book review about how Kapadia has strong writing and marketing skills in telling his story in the book. This commentary does not make the book review PR. This commentary does not invalidate the book review from being an independent reliable source. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VV 12:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He is great at selling his story because he is an ex-Google marketing executive, or more accurately an account executive. Somebody who is by definition is excellent at digital marketing. The primary driver for this whole discussion is the fact he is an ex-Google executive, that is what piqued the initial coverage. If he was an ex-Microsoft executive or an ex-Intel executive setting up shop, there would be no special interest and no coverage. So the whole idea of him being notable is rotten to the core and is an appeal to the fact that PR is ascendant. It is the idea that a simple examination of coverage is the ideal whereas a detailed examination has no value. The very existence of PR being present or being used here is negated.   scope_creep Talk  10:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Those arguing against keep have a strangely stratospheric bar for RS contributing to notability. If a Forbes-branded publication, even an Indian one, isn't an RS, what would be? Oh, wait, WP:RSP already weighed in, and finds Forbes staff-written articles (and the referenced one is such) entirely reliable. I simply do not understand how a good-faith editor can argue that when an RS picks up a PR and bases an article under it, this is somehow a fruit of the poisonous tree issue. Quite the contrary, when independent RS'es pick up PR and transform it, it sheds the self-published an promotional baggage, even if the resultant article remains positively disposed towards the subject. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid but you are on the wrong way and I am a little afraid to read this - Forbes 30 have been especially classified as not a WP:RS because they are promotional mentions by 3rd ones which are not redacted by Forbes itself, they more or less only publish the list. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @CommanderWaterford This link says it has been curated by Forbes India, not any third party. 30 under 30 is not a promotional mention but recognition of notability by Forbes. Dial911 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dial911 Forbes 30 Under 30 .... CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The weird thing about all of this: Forbes doesn't really matter considering the sources available. Cunard specifically identified enough sources over a long enough period of time that clearly meet WP:GNG, including coverage from the BBC and a book review (for a HarperCollins published book - not "constructed PR.") Passes WP:NAUTHOR. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer I have been stating that he has been getting continuous mainstream coverage from 2016 till now, in international media. But I am not sure on what basis people are saying he is not notable when he passes GNG, quite clearly. Dial911 (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment While the discussion is on, I found these new sources in the media 1, 2, 3. I haven't added them to the article because it already has plenty RS. He is a high-profile individual as per our policies. Dial911 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2021 (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.