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[edit]

Ching's Secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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:

     So here's a trick question: Which is the cuisine with a uniformly high pan-Indian appeal? In other words, which type of cuisine can now be found all across the country and has a uniform acceptance rate? ... Ajay Gupta, a food entrepreneur from Mumbai, had asked me the question about the truly pan-Indian cuisine. When he saw my confusion, his tongue-in-cheek but accurate answer was, 'Indian Chinese. Indian Chinese is popular as street food, restaurant fare, and now also at home, across the country, from Aizawl to Jaisalmer and from Leh to Quilon,' he chuckled.

     He should know, for Ajay has been selling the Ching's Secret brand of Chinese food products for fifteen years in India. When he launched the brand, he clearly saw the popularity of Chinese food in India.

     ...

     To add to the charisma of the brand, Ajay decided to explore one more aspect of the middle-class Indian kitchen. While the woman of the house wanted to be adventurous in her cooking, she had no idea what this entailed. For instance, most women were aware of Hakka noodles as one of the chief dishes of a Chinese meal, but not what went with it. Was it enough to have a sweet and sour vegetable? Was something more required? Ching's Secret found itself in the position of not merely an innovator, but a mentor. When one of the largest retailers in the country suggested that Ching's Secret present itself as a total solution, Ajay knew exactly what he should do. And since this retailer was a brand partner as well, Ajay got the freedom to represent all Chinese cuisine ingredients together on the shelf as a single section. Now the customer saw not Ching's Secret Hakka noodles in one aisle and Ching's Secret soya sauce in another, but the entire range together, at one single place. The power of suggestion became a multiplier in itself. The supermarket shelves 'told' the customer to buy sweet corn soup to go along with the main meal. Ching's Secret no longer stood for 'ingredients for Chinese cooking', but a do-it-yourself Chinese menu. The product range opened the door for any woman who wished to prepare a full Indian Chinese meal at home. No wonder the brand succeeded in the face of giants like Knorr and Maggi. The difference between them and Ching's was that while they offered a product, Ching's—the Chinese expert—offered a cuisine solution.

     Today the brand advertises on TV, was a sponsor for the popular reality show, Indian Idol, sells in both urban and rural markets and has a huge presence in all kirana stores, but Ching's Secret was probably the first mainstream brand in India that was built in modern retail stores and then moved to traditional retail. It successfully tapped into the access and depth of the large, self-service supermarkets, and capitalized on the growth these offered to its advantage. The mantra of Ching's Secret's success is now being replicated by other newage marketers ...

  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.