Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ching's Secret (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, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The massive changes the article underwent during the AfD, and the fact that many earlier participants did not come back to comment on the revised version or later claims of sources, makes it essentially impossible to derive a consensus outcome from this particular discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ching's Secret

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

Pure advertising, but a previous AfD closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Nominated for G11, and it meets that criterion, but that's technically unavailable after even a non consensus close DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Clear case FOR G11. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article as nominated is clearly highly promotional, and therefore non-encyclopedic. However, I do believe the company (barely) meets GNG: see this, this, and this. There are a number of other mentions in news sources, which are not quite as substantial. If the article were pared down to material that just came from these sources, it would be worth keeping. I will try to clean this up shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've thrown out nearly everything promotional, and added all the substantive English language coverage I could find. I am not 100% certain this is worth keeping, but if we decide to delete this version, then I'll be certain it was the right call. Vanamonde (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as I myself tagged for G11 since it cert applied, I made careful searches and examinations but essentially found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Mall, Damodar (2014). Supermarketwala: Secrets To Winning Consumer India. Haryana, India: Random House India (Random House). ISBN 8184006497. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The book notes:
2. The sources mentioned by Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ching's Secret to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) has cleaned up the article so that it is no longer promotional. Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (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.