Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Chef

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. No consensus appears to be forthcoming, there's arguments on both sides and relisting only emphasised that this is contentious. KaisaL (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Home Chef

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

Only the most local of possible sources, of sources talking only about funding---which are theefore not discriminating. notability.The policy here is NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the available sources seem like media placements by a decent PR agency, which are barely more useful than press releases. Lacking anything else, Delete. And as far as PERNOM, see WP:PEDANTIC. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have many links to the same article hosted on various websites. Could you please provide any evidence qualifying your opinion of the sources potentially being media placements by a public relations agency? My research verifies that they are not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage outside local sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the sources I have provided below, which includes coverage in three states outside of Illinois (New York, Indiana, Minnesota). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also considered PROD but I imagine that may have been removed as it commonly happens. There's simply nothing here at all for any applicable notability and searches would find the same. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searches provided plenty of reliable source coverage to qualify notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. See the sources I have provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Several additional sources are available that are not based upon fundraising. Per WP:AUD, "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" and "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (bold emphasis mine). The Chicago Tribune article below qualifies as a source that provides regional and statewide coverage. Per the Chicago Tribune Wikipedia article, it is the most-read daily newspaper of the Great Lakes region and Chicago metropolitan area. See the maps below for the geographic areas of these regions.

The The Times of Northwest Indiana is the "the second-largest newspaper in Indiana" that qualifies as regional coverage (see The Times of Northwest Indiana § Distribution) and possibly statewide coverage.

The company has received coverage in three states outside of Illinois, specifically in Indiana, the New York Observer and St. Paul Pioneer Press. Examples of bylined news articles are listed below. More sources also exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not based upon fundraising

"Home Chef delivers meal kits to those who love to cook, hate to shop". Chicago Tribune.
"Homemade goodness: Home Chef delivers recipes, ingredients to your doorstep". The Times of Northwest Indiana.
"We Tried Blue Apron, Hello Fresh and Their 4 Competitors—One Was Clearly the Best". New York Observer.
"Are meal-kit delivery services worth the cost? We tried seven". St. Paul Pioneer Press.
"Too busy or inept to put together your own meals? There's this". Crains Chicago Business.
Internet Retailer

Additional sources

TechCrunch
Chicago Business Journal

Maps

The Chicago Tribune is the most-read daily newspaper in The Great Lakes region of North America (pictured)
A map of the Chicago metropolitan area in relation to the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana

Comment The articles not based on fundraising are straight promotion--just read the Chicago Tribune one for example. It's essentially an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bylined news article written by a staff writer for the Chicago Tribune. You have provided no evidence of this or any of the other articles supposedly being paid advertorials. Such evidence is unlikely to be found, because simply put, they are not. For example, notice how a Google search for the verbatim title of the Chicago Tribune article (here) only links to the Chicago Tribune article, and no others, so it's not a press release either. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple potential sources have been listed by Northamerica1000. Users Toddst1, Meatsgains, and SwisterTwister may want to re-visit the discussion. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That would still be a delete for now, the listed coverage is still not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:CORPDEPTH states, " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The sources I provided above all provide significant coverage, provide coverage in three states outside of Illinois, and are not trivial or incidental coverage at all. "Not convincing" comes across as entirely subjective, rather than based upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple reliable sources with significant coverage listed within discussion here, not limited to one local area. Gab4gab (talk) 11:47, 29 June 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.