Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Fried Chicken

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California Fried Chicken[edit]

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

Chronically unsourced article on an Indonesian fast-food chain. No indication of non-trivial coverage discernible from Google News or Google Books. This was a prod disputed on the basis of an (unsourced) claim in the article that it contains 200 stores. However, the requirement for WP:ORG is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", and its is easily conceivable (given its geographical moniker) that such an obvious imitator of American fast food might not evoke much in the way of non-trivial secondary source coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references (or poor article quality in general) is not the criteria for deletion. The criteria is strictly notability. I've since added a source for 183 stores which clearly establishes notability, and now suggest that this afd is now redundant. --Merbabu (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the notability requirement for organisations is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" -- which this article currently FAILS ABYSMALLY! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, 200 stores in Indonesia is not notable, but 300 in Australia is? (and please don't shout). --Merbabu (talk)

As I already told you below, number of stores "is an "arbitrary quantity", not relevant to any notability criteria, and so not relevant to this discussion." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, how would you feel about putting Red Rooster up for AFD? (I've already asked that a few times), and if not, how does that fit into WP:BIAS? cheers. (as for "already told you", you only just "told me", in both cases to much earlier comments. No need to be rude or try to make me incorrectly look foolish ). --Merbabu (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "a company could be notable with only a single store" did you fail to comprehend? I would no more nominate an article for AfD based upon an "arbitrary quantity" than I would advocate 'keep'ing one on such a quantity. This is an issue of the availability of third-party secondary sources, on which a balanced, substantive article can be created (i.e. WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:NPOV -- core policies), NOT "systemic bias". If a sufficiency of such sources exists for Red Rooster, then it should be retained regardless of the number of stores. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it goes your way, then let me suggest it's a great victory for process over outcome. If you are so (demonstratively) adamant that there is no problem with an outcome that removes one but not the other, then I can't say much more. And linking long term editors to the core policies is a little disrespectful. --10:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete. From the results of the different searches I am convinced that most of the claims are verifiable, and that the subject is an actual competitor to KFC and similar American franchises in Indonesia, but coverage that is both extensive and focused on the subject is minimal. I was only able to find these article [1], which seems to be sourced on this other one [2]. The rest of the hits, which are not scarce at all, focus either on economic or nutritional aspects, and so CFC is usually mentioned in passing together with its competitors. As for those cases, I personally see the casual manner in which the subject is referred to as a indicator of a certain notability, given that the reader is assumed to be familiar with the subject, thus making unnecessary to provide a more verbose coverage (which is what we are looking for) - frankie (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source appears to be a blog and thus presumed unreliable unless proved otherwise. The second, as far as I can tell from Google Translate, appears to be somewhat of a puff-piece/infomercial in on online directory whose purpose seems more to promote businesses than to report neutrally on them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my thoughts exactly, specially the second one I think it might have been written by CFC and later reproduced by the website - frankie (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I do not have a source, let alone counted 200, I have seen these stores are indeed all through Indonesia. As a country of 250 million people, it's quite feasible that there are indeed 200 stores. There is likely to be less RS on an indonesian franchise than a western equivalent, but this chain is comparable to Australia's Red Rooster. Deletion of CFC would be a case of systematic bias. --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Facebook like figures CFC Indonesia has 80,000 likes and KFC Indonesia has 60,000 likes. WHile I'm not suggesting we use facebook as a reliable source, it does show that it's not a non-notable puff piece. --Merbabu (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, WP:BIAS did not over-rule WP:ORG. "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (i.e. facts actually relevant to the notability criterion)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, 200 stores is not notable? --Merbabu (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"200 stores" is an "arbitrary quantity", not relevant to any notability criteria, and so not relevant to this discussion. A company could be notable with only a single store or non-notable with hundreds. The criteria is WP:SECONDARY coverage, not store-numbers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOrry, I'll use common sense, not deep searches for WP:SOMETHINGTHATMIGHTWORK. --Merbabu (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you are using is a special pleading which, as a logical fallacy, is hardly "common sense". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. California Fried Chicken is often included in the discourse of fast food marketing in Indonesia. Multiple entries in Google Books (most in Indonesian) indicate that it is often cited as an example of using Western names as a strategy to draw interest to the home-grown fast food chain and of a successful franchising history. There is also scholarly interest in Indonesia in comparison studies among CFC, KFC, McDonald's, and Pizza Hut when using the Google Scholar search. The parent company seems to be doing well, having doubled its stock value within the past year. While it is unlikely that the article would come out of Stub status without more information about its history (though I did manage to learn that it's owned by a Chinese Indonesian), it's a very visible franchise in a nation of 240 million. (I wouldn't be surprised if the franchise received support from the government during the Suharto period considering it's Indonesian-owned, but that would be OR at this point...) P.S. "Systemic bias" is not the same as "systematic bias", and I could say the former may be a fair assessment of this scenario. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you appear to be doing is making an argument that (what might be termed) pervasive trivial coverage (i.e. ubiquitous, but bare, mention) can demonstrate a WP:COMMONSENSE notability. Whilst I would not dismiss such an argument out of hand, I would question how such fragmentary coverage affects one of the explicit reasons for requiring "significant coverage" for WP:Notability -- that "sources address the subject directly in detail" means that "no original research is needed to extract the content". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your argument, one must understand the context and culture of documentation in Indonesia. The subject is definitely notable in the region, and it's unlikely that it hasn't been nontrivially covered in a local magazine or newspaper. The problem is that Indonesia had very poor accessibility to the Internet and the English language until the mid-2000s. The hundreds of print magazines and newspapers that appeared prior to this are not accessible by conventional means, nor are they indexed for public access. You are judging triviality by comparing it to coverage of subjects accessible to the English speaking population. It is easy to say something is trivial, thus placing a burden of proof on the other side proving otherwise. A brief history from the Indonesian Capital Market Directory: "The company was founded in 1984 as a franchise of U.S. based Pioneer Take Out, with California Pioneer Chicken as its registered trademark. In 1998, the partnership came to an end but this did not halt the... [unreadable because of Snippet view]" —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 11:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The chain has clearly been noticed by numerous sources from The Economist to Rough Guides. The extent and manner of our coverage is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and utter rubbish: "the extent and manner of our coverage", and specifically whether there is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" is a "matter" squarely before this AfD, NOT merely "a matter of ordinary editing". I would thank Colonel Warden not to misrepresent WP:AFD, which explicitly mentions such "notability concerns" as a legitimate reason for nominating an article for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Jakarta Post conducted research that showed it to be among the most popular quick service restaurants in Jakarta. This article notes that it is a continuation of one of the first quick service restaurants to enter Indonesia. This blurb in Suara Merdeka is about CFC's efforts to expand in Salatiga (in Indonesian, but that's okay). Numerous books use California Fried Chicken as an example of Indonesian companies taking Western sounding names. There is a thesis that analyzes the marketing strategy they use, while this one analyzes consumer preferences. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I don't see any content worthy of an article in Wikipedia. Both articles (English and Indonesian) are badly written adds for yet another of the million plus fast food chain clones.p (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And the theses? They couldn't have been too "badly-written"; the writers graduated, after all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo Daoist appears to be commenting on the 2 wikipedia articles, not the sources. However, notability of the subject, and not article quality is the only factor in an AFD. --Merbabu (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was subtly suggesting that WP:SPAM applies to both articles.p (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would u suggest that Red Rooster is also spam? They are comparbale in size and style. regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is always a poor argument for retention -- (i) in an encyclopaedia the size of Wikipedia, non-policy-compliant material will always exist somewhere, (ii) likewise cleanup has to start somewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, my question was to p. Thank you. But since you bring it up, you can't just provide new reasons to delete (and a change in your position on Red Rooster) now that your original case for deletion (ie, lack of sources) is shown to be incorrect. Smells a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Merbabu (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rooster isn't the target of this specific AfD. That said, if http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rooster was in AfD, based only on the content and sources of that specific article, I would suggest deletion. Both http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rooster and http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rooster are iffy, since they lack reliable sources. The English version has both sources, and content that can be used to resurrect all four articles from AfD, if Red Rooster were the topic of this AfD. p (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you claim that this chain is significant, rewrite the articles (Indonesian, English) to provide at least as much data about this chain, as is in the Red Rooster, with the appropriate citations. Reliable sources does not mean Internet only. p (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merbabu: (i) AfDs are an open conversation, so I have every right to respond to any comment I choose. (ii) I have not changed my "reason to delete" -- I am simply pointing out that your reason-to-keep is explicitly listed in WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. (iii) My "position on Red Rooster" IS AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN that, per WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity, it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT whether California Fried Chicken OR Red Rooster have one store or hundreds. WHAT IS RELEVANT is whether "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" exists for the topic of this AfD. (Incidentally, just having had a look at Red Rooster & added a number of tags for it, I would probably support its deletion, in its current state, should it be nominated.) (iv) The issue is therefore NOT WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but your ubiquitous WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT of what I have actually said. (v) Your last sentence STINKS of WP:Assume bad faith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But sources have been provided above which you've completely ignored. Who's not "hearing"? IDONTLIKEIT is therefore a fair assumption on my behalf when responses to your original argument are ignored (lack of sources) are "not being heard" and you are providing new arguments. I never suggested Red Rooster was "CRAP" - i'd thank you not to put words in my mouth too. But at least if you'd nominated it, you'd show some consistency.

And you really really have to polish up your manners - incivility is not a replacement for a weak argument. Surely you see the irony in your last sentence. --Merbabu (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I haven't commented upon every single source that has been mentioned in this AfD, but as far as I am aware NONE of them are simultaneously reliable, independent, and give the topic more than bare mention. (ii) Given that you repeatedly insisted on adding this citation to the article, AFTER frankie and I had agreed that it was unreliable, it would appear to be YOU WHO IS NOT LISTENING -- yet I have not accused you of WP:ILIKEIT. (iii) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS links to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? -- which is PRECISELY on-point on your ENDLESS 'what about Red Rooster ... what about Red Rooster ... Red Rooster ... Red Rooster ... Red ... Red ..." commentary. (iv) citing the shortcut to a relevant Wikipedia page is NOT 'putting words in your mouth' -- so kindly cease and desist the bogus accusations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

don't make arguments that consistently come from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, don't make those same arguments-to-avoid over and over, and don't make wild and unsubstantiated accusations, and you might receive a more positive reception. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "It is the main brand of PT Pioneerindo Gourmet International Tbk which was listed on the Jakarta Stock Exchange in 1994." And 215 branches across Indonesia, this is no small firm. The very fact is is mentioned along with KFC in a few books would indicate it is not just a local restaurant. That makes it notable in my view. I picked up a few hits in books on Asian marketing too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as Merbabu is accusing me of 'ignoring' sources, the following is an attempt to make sure I've commented upon (at least in summary) all of them from this AfD and the article. (Do please let me know if I've missed any of them):
- Unreliable: [3][4][5](unpublished)[6](unpublished)[7](promotional puff-piece)
- Not directly on the subject nor significant coverage:[8](parent company's stock ticker)
- Brief (would appear to be 1/2 to 1 page generic company blurb, not "significant" or in any depth whatsoever) coverage in a business directory listing:[9]
- Bare mentions (not "significant coverage"):[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]
- Not independent:[23]

Does this add up to "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"? I would say not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that these are all web sources, which, as I mentioned above, is not an appropriate survey of coverage of Indonesian topics. Wikipedia's threshold of inclusion is verifiability. All the information we've given you has been mentioned in a secondary source. Brief or not, many of these are reliable sources. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If other, non-web, reliable sources exist, then cite them (e.g. with {{cite book}} and quote the relevant material. I can hardly be blamed for failing-to-review/'ignoring' sources that nobody has presented. Specificity is required for WP:Verifiability -- so generally AfDs take notice only of specific sources that are demonstrated to exist -- not on the vague possibility of sources that might exist. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly large chain. If it operated in a Western country nobody would dream of nominating it. Too much reliance on internet sources, which may not be so common outside the developed world, is always a mistake. The fact it exists is clearly verifiable and that is enough for the existence of an article on a chain that size. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It is a chain and it does exist. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mere existence of a chain does not make for notability. Six-Twelve is one example of a non-notable chain in the united states. p (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2011 (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.