Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopitiam

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. Sandstein 13:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kopitiam[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A non-notable company that should be deleted or redirected to National Trades Union Congress, which recently bought out the chain. A search for sources turns up nothing that meets WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH (possibly due to the chain sharing a name with many, many other businesses and restaurants). Furthermore, the only real coverage concerning the chain (which would still be excluded from meeting NCORP as it is a routine business announcement) is in regards to the chain being acquired by the National Trades Union Congress. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found independent reliable sources here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: I probably should have been more specific in my nomination; Kopitiam translates roughly to Coffeehouse in Malaysian, and so many venues use the name. For example, of the sources cited above, sources 1, 2, 3, and 6 refer to a cafe in New York City that is unrelated to the Malaysian company. As for the other three sources (2 of which document the same event), all three are standard company announcements/press releases and regional in nature; the former type of source do no establish notability, as WP:NCORP takes a strong stance against such trivial coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kopitam original set up in Malaysia and branches to other countries, thus the coverage fro New York Times, CBS talks about the same chain of company - see here 1 [1] is from New Strait Times which is a independent realizable source and not a press release piece. More coverage here 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note this AfD is about the Singapore-based Kopitiam Corporation, not the generic Malasian term for coffeehouse; quoting from one of the sources cited above "Kopitiam means coffee shop". In my reading of the sources shown at this AfD, I can see no connection between this Kopitiam and the New York Cafe (or any of hundreds of other venues) of the same name... perhaps I am missing something? Some sources above do mention the right Kopitiam, but only in regards to news about the upcoming merge with NTUC—the one exception is this article [2], an interview with the company's founder. My case remains that coverage of this Kopitiam is regional (confined only to Singapore), and lacking the in-depth, independent coverage for inclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Clearly, Cassiopeia's references do not refer to this organization (and show why just going a Google search and listing everything found is a bad idea). SamHolt6 correctly explained it above. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Disambiguate The Singapore based Kopitiam Corporation is not a non-significant company at the national. One must consider the primary audience of this article, Singaporeans, Singapore residents and visitors. With 70-80 outlets (10 outlets per search result page, 8 pages.) in a land mass 721+km2 of Singapore, many in Singapore, if not most will dine at any one of its outlets at least once (anecdotal) and they reported 1.8 million Kopitiam card (its own cashless card) being held [3]. Being a significant national company, the coverage of the company is usually within the national media, rather than at regional or international level. This stub was unfortunately not well worked on from its inception in 2004. I would vote for this to be kept and expanded. @CASSIOPEIA had threw up some articles which can be included, i.e. straws issue, the Tampines Hub issue. With sufficient time and effort, more notable events/news can be unearthed for this article from NLB's archive. There are 2000+ news articles (usually from Straits Times and other national newspapers circulated) to look through in there. However, the article should be renamed with Kopitiam (Singapore) or similar so as not to confuse people this company with the other more familiar meaning (coffeeshop Kopi_tiam), or even the Malaysian restaurant in New York, or even the Kopi tiam at Swissotel Singapore. robertsky (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Robertsky, in particular the news articles accessible from the National Library of Singapore. Significant company that has received significant coverage. I agree that this should be moved and the Kopitiam title be redirected to Kopi tiam, but I'd prefer Kopitiam (company) as the title instead of Kopitiam (Singapore) which itself is ambiguous. feminist (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (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.