Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelita Nasi Kandar


 * 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. North America1000 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Pelita Nasi Kandar

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. This article is little more than a list of restaurants, a form of advertising, and contains no citations to back up any of the information, including whether it is notable. Ira Leviton (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. As the article currently stands, it is entirely unreferenced and promotional.  HighKing++ 13:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 10:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 10:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Credible assertion of notability. Someone was putting the references into the external links section; I've moved them inline, added a third (fourth) (fifth). I do think we need to remove have removed the listing of all outlets as promotional, but this seems to be a notable-enough restaurant chain. —valereee (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you point to which reference in particular you believe meets the criteria for notability as per NCORP? I've looked at each and do not understand the basis for your !keep !vote based on the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There are currently 5 references - the first is based on a company announcement and quotes from the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND. The second is also based on an interview and fails ORGIND. The third is based on an announcement/interview, fails ORGIND. The fourth is based on a rebuttal from the company and its execs, fails ORGIND. THe fifth is based on a company announcement and fails ORGIND.  HighKing++ 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, @HighKing! I think the Malay Mail piece certainly is sigcov. Not sure what you mean by 'based on an interview' -- the simple fact spokespersons are quoted doesn't make the piece a simple interview? Interview sigcov fails are typically simple transcripts of interviews, Q&As. The others are shorter, but the fact the business is being covered in multiple outlets for me would push it over the hump. All of these media have articles. Do we suspect this is paid coverage? —valereee (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, WP:ORGIND is key and especially the piece about "Independent Content". You say the Malay piece is merely spokespersons being quoted - but the article itself admits "Malay Mail Online spoke to one of Pelita's directors, Datuk K.K. Sihubutheen, to find out more about its past as well as its plans for the future". So that's pretty much the entire article. Can you point to somewhere in the article where the journalist provides their own opinion/analysis/etc because that it the requirement. You also say "the fact the business is being covered in multiple outlets for me would push it over the hump" and this appears to me that you favour a quantity over quality approach? That isn't how notability works I'm afraid. We need multiple (at least two from different publications) references which meet *both* WP:CORPDEPTH (not sigcov) and WP:ORGIND. Fair enough if you want to express an opinion rather than look closely at the guidelines, hopefully the closer can see that.  HighKing++ 15:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * lol wow, so kind. :D —valereee (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, wasn't trying to be a smartarse but I can see what I wrote unintentionally looks unkind.  HighKing++ 12:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This nomination was never transcluded to the daily log page until now.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 19:25, 22 July 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.
 * Weak Keep. I think this chain just scrapes over the line into notability, though if the consensus is otherwise you won't find me arguing too much. What makes me think the chain is just about notable is (a) its relative size: it's just about big enough to be known reasonably well in its home market, and (b) its Guinness Book entry. There are a few references in independent sources to this restaurant chain. It's not a global company, but it's a player in Malaysia. RomanSpa (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, just thought I'd point out the following. It doesn't have a Guinness Book entry - the only mention of an entry in a Book of Records comes from the company themselves in one period of time in Jan 2017, is not independently validated, and is the Malaysian Book of Records which is a different kettle of fish entirely. Also, none of the references contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND - they all rely on interviews/announcements/quotations from the company. Can you revisit your !vote again please? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the 7 sources used on the page seem to carry enough weight and are published in major newspapers/magazines (even if some include quotes from spokespeople). They aren't republished press releases, since they were written by journalist for edited publications. A quick Google search also turned up these, . — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuySomeApples (talk • contribs)
 * The criticism of the references were that they failed NCORP, specifically ORGIND. If you think all seven meet the criteria for establishing notability, can you explain which parts of those references contain "Independent Content"? You'll also need to expand on what you mean by "carry enough weight" as there's nothing in the guidelines that matches that criteria. You say the references aren't "republished" press releases - nobody said they were. What was said is that the articles *relied* entirely on interviews/announcements/quotations - to such an extent that there is no "Independent Content" in any of those articles. Finally (and ironically given what I've just said), both of the references you link to above also *rely entirely* on a company announcement with no "Independent Content". The FMT reference is based on an announcement - here's another from The Star that is word-for-word identical so I think you'll agree it cannot be "Independent Content". Same with the hmetro.com reference, all of the fact are attributed to the company/CEO via the announcement, no "Independent Content". <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has been improved significantly since nomination by and appears to pass WP:GNG. The article has been completely re-written since both delete votes. NemesisAT (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP (not GNG) which places a large emphasis on the quality of references. Can you point to any reference that meets both CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND? Also, my Delete !vote above occurred *after* the modification by Valereee and to date nobody can point to a single reference that meets NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:31, 4 August 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.