Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singa goody


 * 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   delete. The Helpful  One  15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Singa goody

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Promotional article about a single fast food stand. No notability demonstrated beyond local mentions. ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply Please read carefully and examine all reference before you state your claim. I have spent time researching and drafting my paras with several admin and work with them. It is seriously not fair or whatever to just put it in one sentence and based on your opinion to get the page deleted. Dreams20 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I looked at a few of the sources given. Most of the links listed as references at the bottom would not quailfy as a reliable source or even don't mention the restaurant at all. This source just gives contact details for the establishment, this "review" does not actually list reviews, and this link appears to be a forum. These links do not even mention the restaurateur at all. In conclusion, the article does not qualify to be kept under the notability guidelines for businesses, and also appears to be a conflict of interest. Essentially, should be deleted as local and non-notable. Nn  Cv 2 11:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * G11 Blatant advertising, tagged as such. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 11:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as notability not established and the lack of any decent sources. Effectively just an advert. Whilst I support the deletion, I've not deleted it under G11 and so removed the speedy tag since I feel that now we have this AfD we might as well let it run so that consensus can be established and any issues properly discussed. Adambro (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do editors do that? Since when have we had to build up a consensus for speedy deletion? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I note in your recent edit summary you say "i don't see a previous speedy which was turned down". The earlier speedy deletion request was declined here and I think there was at least another turned down on the basis that speedy deletion had already been declined with the suggestion that it should be taken to AfD. You can consider my removal of your tag as declining the speedy deletion as well and I've explained the reasoning. I recognise you are keen to see this article deleted but you should realise that getting it deleted via an AfD is a stronger signal that this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia rather than the opinion of a single administrator deleting it under the speedy deletion criteria and so makes it more difficult for it to return without addressing the concerns that have been raised. We might as well give the opportunity to comment on these concerns now an AfD has been created. Adambro (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Spam article Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable spam, per Knuckle Curve's research. Drawn Some (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as above Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi there, this article was typed by me. Prevously when i completed the article, it was accepted and one admin has already helped me editted it. I do have reliable sources and if you viewed closely, what i mention was mention by the newspapers or Internet materials. I don't understnad why some claim that it was advertisement and want it deleted. Look at other similar establishment like BREADTALK and crystal jade have lesser references. I can provide you reliable source. Please do not waste my effort on the article and it is obviously not advertisement. Please look at other similar articles. While typing this article, I have been trying to write closely to the guidelines. I don't understand why it is considered ads. Btw, pardon me for being late here cos i din know how to come here. I only write articles and edit articles. Some functions I am still not familiar. Btw, if u read on other history, one admin who helped me with the article said : Singa goody is the 1st of its own kind, it can be placed on wikipedia. Please advise me rather than wanting it to be deleted. Previously, i have tried to contact some admin, they didn't even want to reply me and just wanted the article to be deleted. Seriously, please don't waste my effort. Dreams20 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources are here: 1- http://yzone.omy.sg/index.php?articleID=11890&option=com_article&task=detail&type= Singapore press holding OMY article mentions Singa goody as the 1st local Halal fast food place. Means Singapore's style fast food. 2- http://www.singaporehalaldirectory.com/cocode-80095612-dirid-76-coname-SINGA+GOODY-CompanyProfile_MG.aspx Halal directory showing Singa goody being a Halal fast food place. Singapore did not have any Halal fast food before Singa goody. So its the first. 3- Maple tree bulletin. http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:3Tygo3100W0J:www.mapletree.com.sg/get_blob.aspx%3Ffile_id%3Dec9_June%252008%2520e-bulletin.pdf+singa+goody&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg The above justified my claim of Singa goody being the 1st local halal fast food.

My references are from these reliable sources, from Singapore's newspaper and organisation. Some articles don't even have any references or uses their own homepage as references. Just 3 reference to justify my claim. Thanks a lot. Warmest Regards. Dreams20 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reality is that it seems all of the sources are questionable. A trivial mention of the company here and there doesn't estabish notability nor does it meet the standards of verifiability that are required. Many of the links listed in the "References" section aren't appropriate. I've already removed one which was simply a link to a forum where the business was discussed. Most of the others are simply directories with basic contact information. There remain two fundamental problems the notability of this particular business hasn't be adequately established and much of the content is unsourced even if we were to consider all the current links to be acceptable. Finally, other articles with similar problems existing does not justify this one being kept. Additionally, I consider Dreams20's claim not to be associated with the business to be potentially suspect, particularly considering all the images they uploaded which don't look like something an average customer would have or create so there is possible a conflict of interests here which makes the requirement for good sources all the more important. Adambro (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The images are taken down from their bulletin and i scan it. Look at the quality of the picture, if it will to be from the shop owner shop will they upload pictures with these quality. Please examine carefully. I have typed other articles and edited a few and posted some pictures. Ok, some references are from forum and i added them to show that I have done my research. Please post me more qns. I seriously find it weird. And one thing to note, some pages of similar organisation do not even have references to start with and my page has 3 reliable ones. I have more, if u need it. Pardon my typing as I am writing new articles now too. warmest regards. Dreams20 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the images could well be copyright violations then... Adambro (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

of course, seek permission before I upload. Dreams20 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting the images but some images that I posted are taken when i dine there. Ok, let be more focus, in the first place, the article was up because it was the 1st of its kind. And hence, several admin accepted it and went on to help me with setting it up and editing.Dreams20 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Adambro for posting me and giving me some light. However, I thought it should be fair for all articles? "Finally, other articles with similar problems existing does not justify this one being kept."? Dreams20 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other articles with similar problems should be deleted or the problems resolved, just as needs to happen with this article, but we've got to start somewhere so there are always going to be articles with outstanding problems whilst other articles are being deleted due to similar problems not being sorted. Adambro (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I see many and they all followed the guidelines as stated like mine. regards. Dreams20 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

i just need to know what errors are there with the article and i adjust it accordingly. I have deleted the pic as requested. FYI, the paragraphs are edited by admin before to make it non-marketing. I have typed several pages and I saw this page getting into deletion just because someone has vanadilised my page and it leads to so many issues going on. Initially, it was deemed as fine. Like I say, the page is under 1st of its kind to be included in wikipedia, that is why i took it up for writing into wiki. Dreams20 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem is that the article fails to meet the notability criteria which states that: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.  All content must be verifiable." This is not the case here. The subject has not been the "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". What we have in the sources you cite are merely trivial mentions, some of the sources are merely directories or review sites and some don't even seem to mention the company. All the content is certainly not verifiable, the extensive section listing all the food they serve being the prime example. Adambro (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

like i say, the article is on because it is the 1st of its kind. It met one of the criteria under one section of being the 1st of its kind. Unique. If u are talking about secondary sources, they are many bulletin and print materials. However, if you want to talk about reliable secondary sources, i gladly refer you to almost all other related food cafes eatries. They don't even have reference and their references is their own website. At least the article I did up has more than 3 references. Like i said, some of the reference i put up is to show where i read my info from...some may be reviews from others but some are reviews and writings from respectable organisations. If refer me to a wikipedia article that has met what you mention. I can show you many which i followed and are accepted for many many years already.Dreams20 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

i be back again. I am rushing an essay for my school now. Dreams20 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I don't accept that being the "first local Halal fast food outlet in Singapore" is enough to disregard the established notability criteria which requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". I note that rather than demonstrating why the current sources should be considered reliable or appropriate, you instead suggest that other articles don't have proper references. I would again suggest that other articles having similar problems is not a reason to not deal with any articles with problems, either by addressing the issues or deletion. We've got to start somewhere. None of current sources are enough to support this article. Of the three you previously highlighted, this is simply a directory listing, this is merely a trivial mention which provides only a tiny amount of information about the subject, and this doesn't really add up to "significant coverage". Adambro (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you misinterpret what i was trying to mean. I am trying to draw your attention that food articles cannot give as solid evidence as compared to Historical, factual as well as famous being. My article being a food article should be placed in the sasme catogory as other food articles. It is impossible to expect a food article to be shaped like a factual article. Reliable sources does not mean long sources. Reliable sources should come from respectable organisation or prints and my articles have references from respectable organisation. Like i say, other FOOD article do not even have similar references and as solid as mine. What i am driving at, is not other food articles shuld be deleted but I meant food articles have reliable sources for food articles whereas factual articles have factual reliable sources. Its difference. You cannot compare apples with oranges. Dreams20 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd generally hope that all articles on Wikipedia could be described as "factual". The notability criteria are well established and have the acceptance of the majority of the community so to disregard the fundamental criteria of a requirement for a subject to have coverage, beyond trivial mentions, in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, is going to require an extremely compelling argument. So far, it doesn't seem that has been the case. With regards to your distinction of food articles, I am sure that there are a great number of properly sources articles related to the subject and equally a great many that aren't, just as is the case with all subjects. That doesn't mean they are acceptable though and shouldn't be deleted if they can't be brought up to the required standards. Being a "food article" does not, and is never going to, exempt such articles from the most basic of notability criteria. One food outlet is only going to be considered notable enough to merit a Wikipedia in extremely limited and exceptional circumstances. This isn't one of them. Adambro (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What i am trying to mean a reliable and a notable one is not determined by its length but by its reputation or respectability. Being a food article, means the article will mention about the stall's uniqueness as well as speciality. The references present may be short but it is equally reliable. The topic is short that is why the references are short. I don't understand why length and reliability should be placed side by side and compare like that. I need to know which food article has sources that are notable? I don't see any. Most food article don't even have and I have been browsing and researching. Basically, I hardly find one. Please show me an example.Dreams20 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not suggested that the length of the content about Singa goody has any bearing on whether that source can be considered reliable. The length is independent of whether a source is able to be described as reliable but to meet the notability criteria, there must be more than trivial mentions and that has to be from a reliable source. Someone could write a thousand word blog post about Singa goody but that wouldn't be an acceptable source because whilst it would constitute significant coverage, a blog isn't generally accepted to be a reliable source. Equally, if a highly respected newspaper like the The New York Times for example made a brief mention of the company in one of its articles that wouldn't be acceptable either. Whilst it would be from a reliable source, the coverage would be trivial.
 * You again seek to compare the article with other, unnamed articles also related to the topic of food but it isn't appropriate to do so. As I've said, I am sure there are many examples of articles across every subject area which do not meet the notability requirements. Their continued existence is not a signal that the community consider them appropriate but rather simply a consequence of the enormous nature of this project. Where there are other articles with similar problems to this one, if they aren't addressed then the article will be deleted. There are many food articles which are concerning notable subjects and are properly referenced. You will find though that those are the ones that meet the notability criteria. You won't find many articles about single fast food outlets because they aren't notable. Adambro (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - a bunch of brief mentions and directory entries. That's not enough to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A reliable and notable one does not mean a long essay or lengthy page. It is determine by the source, its reputation as well as reliability. Not the length of its mention.Dreams20 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A trivial mention doesn't confer notability no matter how reliable the source. All of the coverage of Singa goody has been relativity insignificant and many of the sources you cite, particularly the directories, cannot really be considered reliable. There is not significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources so it fails to meet the notability criteria. Simple as that. Adambro (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - At the end of the day, it's a small article about a fast food restaurant that has no bearing on general life. The author is seeking to publicise and draw attention to the establishment but they should ask them self the question... Is it worth the effort? People don't go to Wikipedia to look for places to eat. Besides, even if all they wanted to do is draw attention to their achievement then they should reconsider the articles content as it does nothing to give informed insight into the establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom991 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.