Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Don's


 * 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 05:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Uncle Don's

 * – ( View AfD View log )

promotional and non-notable. Every reference is either a mere notice, or a promotional interview such as ref.2, or straight PR.  DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I don't see any neutrality issues with the article itself. Sources are enthusiastic but that does not necessarily make them promotional - they've opened 27 locations in 5 years so customers seem to be as enthusiastic as the press. WP:INTERVIEW claim is not solid as articles with interview content also contain significant background information. ~Kvng (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP is the appropriate guideline - requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay and ORGIND is a guidelines. Taking a look at the references:
 * This from Options opens with an admission that the journalist has known the CEO for about 20 years and "there could be some amount of bias". It is also based almost entirely on an interview. Fails WP:ORGIND as neither the source nor the content qualify as "Independent Content".
 * This from The Star is a report on the opening of an Uncle Don outlet, mentioning the "football legends" who attended and regurgitating quotes provided by the co-founder/CEO. Fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
 * This corporate profile is a PRIMARY source as per here, fails ORGIND
 * This from Malay Mail discusses the opening of three new branches during Covid19, entirely based on material provided by the CEO as can be seen by the various paragraphs starting with "According to founder..." or "He told Malay Mail", "Ong said", etc, as well as the numerous quotations, fails ORGIND
 * This from Vulcan Post is based entirely on an interview with the CEO as confirmed in the article, fails ORGIND
 * World Of Buzz is based on an "Official Statement" from the company, fails ORGIND
 * Loopme is a review of one of the restaurants and contains zero information about the corporation (the topic of this article), fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from Were2LifestyleMagazine looks like a small obscure blog-style website with no information on editorial policies or named authors, it is also self-described as a blog, fails WP:RS
 * The Star is two short paragraphs which mentions the topic company in a future hopeful context, fails CORPDEPTH
 * The Star is based on a company statement with no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
 * This by The Star is based entirely on a filing with the stock exchange with no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
 * This from The Brand Laureate is copied from the Corporate Profile and other company marketing literature, fails ORGIND
 * None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find rely entirely on the company's "echo chamber" of information and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The restaurant chain is quite famous in Kuala Lumpur and throughout the Malaysia. I admit, added news sources are locally published media and contributors are local Malaysian. Also, the news media and its contributors are independent. I believe the company passes the "Primary criteria" of Notability (organizations and companies) and news sources "Meet the standard for being a reliable source". If you want to revamp the page, that would be very helpful. Lily Li Foung (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I note you have declared an interest in this company on your User Page but nevertheless, in order for a topic to be notable, there must be references and news sources that meet WP:NCORP requirements. You've said there are sources in your !vote comment above but can you link to any such reference or news source please?  HighKing++ 11:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article provides commentary about the restaurant chain: "Often when thinking about a restaurant to meet up with friends at for an overdue catch-up session, a suggestion that always comes up is Uncle Don’s. It’s mainly due to my friends’ shared fondness of its affordability and wide range of menu items that include beverages, whether boozy or not. The restaurant and bar brand is no doubt a favourite for many other Malaysians, considering the fact that it only started in 2015 yet already has 27 outlets to date." The article discusses Uncle Don's creation of "its own delivery app to cut out the middleman due to high commissions". The article provides analysis of the experience, "I tried the app out myself and found that it had a smooth UX. But when it came to logistics, I got a call from Lalamove telling me that the restaurant didn’t even receive my order even though I’d already paid.  ... Pending bug fixes aside, having to download a new app for a single F&B brand, fill in personal details about one’s contact, location, and credit card info into yet another app can be quite the turn-off for adoption. ... However, if they were to focus on only their own app, I would expect a decent uptake of users from their fanbase." The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the restaurant, but there is substantial independent research and analysis to meet Notability (organizations and companies).  The article provides commentary about the restaurant chain: "Uncle Don's, which is known for its affordable drinks and pub-like food like grilled chicken chop, plans to go public either via a reverse takeover (RTO) route or a direct sale of its share. The article provides detailed reporting about the company including noting that it has 18 locations, its listing will assist it in paying for more locations including internationally, that the company will have 15 more locations including two in Singapore, that two of the locations are owned by Asia Poly through a "joint-venture" with Uncle Don's Holdings, that if the listing happens, it will be part of a string of "other consumer-driven companies" that will be going public, that the company has an annual revenue of Rm 50 million. This meets Notability (organizations and companies).</li> <li> The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the restaurant, but there is substantial independent reporting and analysis to meet Notability (organizations and companies). The article provides analysis of the restaurant chain: "Uncle Don’s is popular among patrons who get to choose from a wide range of affordably-priced fusion, Western, Portuguese and Nyonya cuisine." The article includes independent reporting, "The first Uncle Don’s outlet was opened in SS2, Petaling Jaya in January 2016. It was the brainchild of Ong and his partner, Don Daniel Theseira, a chef of almost 40 years. Together they coined the “Dine Like A Don Every day” tag line which promotes the brand’s spirit of affordable dining. Since its opening, the chain has bagged several awards including one for best restaurant brand."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Uncle Don's to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Comment The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which requires a stricter examination of references to establish notability than vanilla GNG referred to by Cunard above. Most importantly, each reference must meet WP:ORGIND *and* WP:CORPDEPTH. All three of the references quoted above by Cunard fail NCORP (as noted earlier above).
 * The Vulcan Post reference. The extracts provided above are trivial and fail *both* ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. True, the journalist provides his opinion on the affordability and wide range of menu items available at the restaurant chain but this is trivial information and does not add to notability. Extracts plucked from the article show the journalist provides a personal opinion on the Uncle Don's app - but the article is not about the app, it is about the organization. The working of the App does not contribute to the notability of the organization. The most important feature though is that this article relies *entirely* on an interview with the founder, Ian Ong. It says it clearly in the article. Even if you are inclined to accept the trivial comments as meeting ORGIND (really, they don't), this reference fails CORPDEPTH as all the information is provided by the founder which is not considered by NCORP for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * The Star reference. Again, this article relies *entirely* on an interview with the founder and on an announcement by the company that it plans to go public. Similar personal opinions of the journalist are plucked from the article and if you are inclined to accept those comments as meeting ORGIND for the purposes of "Independent Content", the information is trivial and does not assist with establishing notability. In addition, *all* of the corporate information has been provided by the company or (as noted in the article) by anonymous "sources familiar with the proposed listing".
 * The final Star reference. This is probably the worst reference of the lot. True, the article "includes quotes from people affiliated with the restaurant" - but that should have been the giveaway. None are "unaffiliated" with the restaurant. The article is an advertorial and relies entirely on information provided by the company and fails ORGIND.
 * The stricter interpretation of sources that may be used to establish notability are per WP:NCORP requires in-depth information that isn't sourced to the company. None of these articles meet the requirement. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete- Does not pass WP:NCORP as per HighKing.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 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.