Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InvisibleKitchen

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 as sources, with one exception, are of insufficient caliber to satisfy WP requirements. Decision supported by consensus.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InvisibleKitchen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability criteria for inclusion. References do not constitute in-depth coverage, nor does a web search turn up enough. Citobun (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets some coverage in reliable sources here; [1] Rrachet (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is only one reliable source, and the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth to demonstrate notability. It's just a cursory guide to food delivery services in HK. Secondly, I find it kind of suspicious that this comment is your first edit. Citobun (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that reference meets the guidelines for establishing notability - it is intellectually independent and published by a reliable source. I disagree that it is a mere "cursory guide to food delivery services" - it is a review of the food and value for money also. But as correctly pointed out, a minimum of two sources is required and none of the other sources meet the criteria. If another source can be found, I'll change my !vote to Keep but for now, it is Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in this article in South China Morning Post, this article in Oriental Daily News, this article in Harper's Bazaar, and this article in Esquire. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cunard, not for the first time, you appear to not grasp that the policies on guidelines governing whether sources are reliable are different to the guidelines and policies on whether a source is acceptable for establishing notability. This being pointed out to you on multiple occasions. The sources you've listed above (with the exception of the same one by Rrachet above), while published by reliable sources, fail the guidelines for establishing notability. The second reference is an advertisement for Mother's Day and the new buffet menu complete with a video of Tom showcasing his food and even includes prices. The next reference is an advertisement for Christmas dinner and includes a photograph, prices and delivery dates. The final reference is an advertisement for the new Canapé menu. All of those fail references fail WP:ORGIND and cannot be considered as "intellectually independent" sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are articles from reputable publishers, not advertisements. If they were advertisements, the reliable sources would label them as such. As Unscintillating (talk · contribs) wrote, "Delete arguments such as 'I get to tell reliable publishers which articles they publish that are reliable sources' make me wonder what is going on here." There is no evidence that the articles were not independently researched and fact-checked. Information about pricing and photographs are useful for readers, which is why the publications included them. It is improper to without evidence accuse reputable publishers like Harper's Bazaar and Esquire of publishing advertisements masquerading as articles.
    I also found this review from Hong Kong Economic Journal and this review from Time Out.
    Cunard (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cunard, there are criteria for determining is a source is reputable and reliable. And then there are criteria for determining whether references meet the criteria for establishing notability that are different and separate. From your multiple comments on multiple AfDs, you appear to totally disregard the criteria for establishing notability. A topic doesn't "meet GNG" by being mentioned in an article published by a reliable and reputable publisher. If the above is truly the opinion (in all circumstances) of Unscintillating then you both share in your miscomprehension. Just to show you how ridiculous that position is - for example, the NYT publishes a full page advertisement, or the NYT publishes an "open letter", or the NYT publishes a press release (marked as such) or a company announcement (marked as such). All of the above would apparently be acceptable to you but they are not acceptable for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Except for one source highlighted by Rrachet above, the other sources are thinly disguised advertisements that fail WP:ORGIND. I am happy to change my !vote if another source can be found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear promotionalism both in information and sources and this is easily to tiepin given the fact every single source offered is an unquestionably indiscriminate local or trade publisher, therefore as they say themselves, they can and will requote the company or rearrange their press releases for an article, therefore our acceptance or use of it is no better than labeling ourselves as a company advertiser; the fundamental policies here are WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy, and this has always outweighed suggestive notability guidelines which only emphasize the possbilities for articles, not the instant agreement one will be accepted based on anything. While consumers may find a business profile convenient and appealing, it's not what any encyclopedia has used, but is what a consumer report journal uses. As we've established before, there's always the revealing signs of when promotionalism was solely intended and this here is no different given the fact one author came by and started it with the crystal clear similarities of a press release. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability established. "Getting coverage" is largely PR-driven, and is not the same as "meeting WP:CORPDEPTH", which is expected of companies. The current copy showcases such routine coverage and advertorial content, as in:

"Invisible Kitchen has supported charities including Hong Kong Dog Rescue, Society for Prevention of cruelty to animals, and Hong Kong Adventist Hospital Charity fund raising!" Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I have reopened the AFD because I mistakenly closed it as no consensus when further discussion might have clarified consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard above mentions two more references. This Hong King Economic Journal review is in Chinese and I've used Google translate to read it - entitled "Five-star food to Gourmet Catering". The article appears to be an advertorial complete with photos of the founder, Tom Burney, quotations and promotional language such as "Tom Burney firmly believes that the best taste is due to the quality of raw materials, so Invisible Kitchen carefully selected the freshest seasonal ingredients, carefully combined to balance the flavor and nutrition, and then personally sent to the guests, so that customers do not need to travel to enjoy chef-style delicacies." Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SPIP. The mention in Timeout is not a review - there is no author and no personal opinions are contained in the text that are related to tastes, experience, etc. Is is clearly an advertisement of five sentences containing beauties such as "The mouthwatering range of goodies goes from beef Wellington to roasted Norwegian salmon" and "If you’ve still room, cram in some apple tarte tatin or Eton mess trifle". Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hong Kong Economic Journal article is a review of the company and its food by journalist Bill Kwok. There is no evidence that Bill Kwok was paid to write an advertorial about Invisible Kitchen. Positive reviews can be used to establish notability. The Timeout article was written by Olivia Lai. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional articles are a violation of our basic principles of nPOV, and should be removed from the encyclopedia. If they are notable, good editors like Cunard should be writing them from the sources they are expert at finding, not misusuing their energy defending articles that are essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If they are notable, good editors like Cunard should be writing them from the sources they are expert at finding, not misusuing their energy defending articles that are essentially advertising." – please do not tell me what to do with my time. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
Cunard (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.