Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munaf Kapadia (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Having been open for about six weeks, there is a clear split of opinion between "the article can be cleaned up" and "the article should be blown up and started over". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Munaf Kapadia
AfDs for this article:


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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, largely WP:SELFPROMOTIONAL sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as too soon. All the news articles appear near-simultaneously with the publishing of his book, and were almost certainly a publicity campaign. we need to see if the subject, and the subject's book, have lasting notability before having an article. The current one is, indeed, promotional. Elemimele (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/Munaf Kapadia participants who are not banned:, , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 12:07, 30 December 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." </li> <li> 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> <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) 12:07, 30 December 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 at the previous AfD 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 at the previous AfD about the independence of the sources, the sources include quotes from the subject but there is also substantial commentary and reporting.  Regarding editors' comments at the previous AfD 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) 12:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: I have been pinged as one who offered an opinion in the initial discussion which closed as No Consensus. I am grateful for the ping, the more so since I disagree. I note that Kapadia is eight months or so further forward in his business, but, despite 's analysis of the references, am not yet persuaded this is other than WP:TOOSOON. I am disturbed by the retention of the Forbes Fie of Fum non RS reference. I still see him as "I see a decent hardworking chap, either WP:ROTM or WP:BLP1E at present" (quoting from the prior discussion) I do see coverage in RS, but of insufficient quality in my view to allow me to move from ROTM to Notable. I would opt for a soft delete because the door should be left wide open for future notability without the risk of immediate speedy deletion as a re-created article deleted at AfD. Equally, either a particular and special "thing" needs to render him notable, or a period of circa 12 months should elapse to see whether a natural notability has established for him. Fails WP:BIO / WP:NAUTHOR at present  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Pinged to respond, I note that the BBC and The Hindu sources are sufficient by themselves to meet GNG. All the rest of the debate about promotion (what business doesn't promote?) and non-independence of other sources are irrelevant: Major RS's including the BBC and The Hindu cover him in non-trivial detail. Arguments that he fails specific SNGs and/or is engaged in promotion are non-policy-based arguments. GNG is met, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — please I do not see adequate WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources totally independent of the subject optimized, there are a few but i am sorry they aren’t sufficient. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I created it because I didn't (and don't) see how GNG isn't met. The person has been talked about in multiple, international, mainstream, reliable sources. And the coverage ranges back to 2015/2016, it's not like he appeared out of nowhere because of self-promotion in 2021. GNG is definitely met and notability has been established. Dial911 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename to either Nafisa Kapadia or The Bohri Kitchen The articles all begin and end with "my mother". What's covered in depth is the kitchen and the food, not the subject in the title. Sources aren't independent in my opinion, but with Hindu and BBC in there, it's futile to argue that. --Hemantha (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete because I was wrong to think Hindu and BBC can't be argued with. --hemantha (brief) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete for what it is worth. The guy was an ex google Account strategist. All the references presented above are paid PR and nothing else. The reason the BBC picked it up, is it reached it threshold and had to reported on. It is far too soon to determine notability. The perceived notabilty of the article is being driven by a PR campaign. It seems to be something Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors are prone to. They simply can't seem to tell the difference between quality and poor references. They're is a base assumption that quantity means quality, and they're is an assumption that because the source is deemed to be RS, that somehow that makes it automatically good, which is fundamentally false. All these paper's accept advertising, in large amounts. It is their lifeblood and ensures their survival to report the real news. This isn't news. Its fake. The only exception here is the BBC, because it is government run, but even BBC when it sees a trend, must report on it. The company that Kapadia worked for, runs the most expansive and professional advertsing agency on the planet. All he would need to do, is turn around and ask a friend to advertise his book and business for him and that would be that. A mates help. Simple as that. The evidence is there, in the articles. They all look the same, they are essentially the same contents, reworded for different audiences but the same with same images. All of it was done to support the book release. It is classic PR advertising exercise, created using the advertising budget from HarperCollins. The very presence of so many stories about this person, opening a restuarant and then going to Harper Collins and saying I want to writ a book about it, is suspect. Aside from the curiosity factor of being an ex-google guy who opened a restuarant, which enough for story, there is nothing that not been done a thousand times before, in this year alone. It so common, particularly in the UK, it is well trodden path. It essentially about a man starting a busines and getting an article on Wikipedia. It is so mediocre.  scope_creep Talk  11:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I vote to keep the article. Wikipedia's GNG guidelines have been more than met through the use of several reliable sources - The Hindu, BBC, The Economic Times, The Times of India, The Financial Express etc. Cunard has done a meticulous job of highlighting the various publications that have carried pieces on the achievements of the subject. Most importantly, since the self-promoting nature of the Wikipedia page is under question, the earliest sources cited appear to date back to 2015. The subject has been written about in various publications, for various reasons (fundraising, entrepreneurship, mental health) across a span of at least 5 years before the book was launched in April 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchykookie (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User is a WP:SPA.   scope_creep Talk  20:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can sympathize with the idea that at least some of the coverage might be a well deployed publicity stunt, and I share the annoyance over Wikipedia as a repository of such publicity stunts (and an active part) by wealthy and/or arrogant people. That being said, at some point, once that stunt has reached the BBC and others, things get tricky. We created notability guidelines that are hard for pure stunts to get through, but inevitably some really, really good ones will check all the boxes on paper. That seems to be happening here. I'd certainly keep an eye on the article in the future to make sure it doesn't just become a free billboard, but as it stands, it does seem to meet the SIGCOV threshold. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  16:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep All this article needs is extensive cleanup. This should perhaps be rewritten. The subject is independently subject to several reliable sources and has been discussed in much detail. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete essentially advertising. That's a violation of NOTADVOCACY, a basic principle, and much more important to our survival than the notability guideline.  DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG. I'd like o add that had somebody tagged this for speedy deletion as spam (G11), I'd have deleted it without thinking twice. --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: The version of the article when nominated for deletion on 29 December 2021 was short and neutrally written:

added a lot of information and sources to the article. Much this material is promotionally written. A lot of it adds good biographical information about the subject which is why I have not reverted their changes. I am fine if any other editor thinks the changes make the article so promotional that they should be reverted. G11 does not apply because Criteria for speedy deletion notes, "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." Supporting deletion of this article because promotional content was added in the middle of the AfD is a very weak reason for deletion. It would give incentive to bad actors who could make an article so promotional that editors would support deletion (I am not saying that is Positivepeace's intention here). There is a neutral version of the article to revert to if necessary. Cunard (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC) </li></ul> Relisting comment: One more relist (despite the fact that I !voted myself), because per the post on my talk page by something went wrong during the last relist and this therefore didn't get queued for closing. Hopefully this corrects that. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree here with as I created the article keeping in mind the tone. It changed over time and may now look promotional but that shouldn't be the reason for its deletion, and definitely not G11. I hope  said that figuratively, because if they really would have deleted it without thinking twice, well... Dial911 (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I do agree that the references seem a bit off, but I am persuaded to weakly keep this based off the sustained (there are spikes of coverage that could be PR, but there's enough coverage outside of those spikes) and international coverage of this person. There is also a bit of coverage of his restaurant from Lonely Planet. To note, I highly suspect Postivepeace is UPE/COI, and if this resolves to a keep their changes likely need much scrutiny. Jumpytoo Talk 11:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * KEEP. Certainly passes WG:GNG, also there are SIGCOV. The article needed to clean up. -  Arunudoy  - <b style="color:white">talk</b> 07:19, 9 February 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.