Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VitaCraft

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. John Reaves (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VitaCraft

VitaCraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable Reads like an advertisement. Sources do not meet criteria of substantial independent work or multiple non-trivial works. —Ocatecir ^Talk 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 02:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. We should get User:ChristopherMannMcKay involved as originator, and maybe User:Pilotguy, who once deleted RFIQin (about which I also have concerns). Besides the fact I hate their misuse of the word anhydrous, I have concerns about the cluster of these three articles. VitaCraft Japan is being justified by its association through Mamoru Imura to VitaCraft, US company, which may or may not (?) make/sell RFIQin, which is simply a 'better' (asserted) means for Induction cooking. So the justifications are by their connections, with the most notable 'thing' being simply an enhancement (now with RFID!) of an established technology. But if these articles go away, then should Mamoru Imura stay? I think they should be considered as a group. (Ouch) Shenme 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• The afd notice on the page has been removed by a single purpose account with the same name as the company's founder. I need to go now, a little later I'll restore and talk with her. - Aagtbdfoua 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Do not Delete When this article was tagged, it might not have had the primary criterion; however, on March 8th I fixed that. In my opinion, the following sources qualify as primary criterion, SolidBizopps & 無水調理が出来る鍋, vita craftとは. User:Ocatecir wrote this article reads like an advertisement; I would like to know what part of the article reads like an advertisement, so if the article does not get deleted, I can fix it.

• Note, RFIQin was the first article I created and I did not read all the wikipedia guides to writing an article, so when I wrote it, it sounded like an advertisement; User:Pilotguy deleted RFIQin and then I re-wrote the article, Pilotguy approved it, and it was posted back up on wikipedia. RFIQin has more than enough sources that classify, in my opinion, as primary criterion and, in my opinion, is not written as an advertisement. RFIQin is made by Vita Craft, however it is only sold in Japan under Vita Craft Japan because there is an ongoing court case over distributing rights in the United States. When I was in Japan, I saw it featured (not as an advertisement) on two nation-wide television shows, in a magazine, and it is displayed at most major department stores; it is somewhat well known in Japan, but because it is not sold in the United States, it has only recieved a little press coverage in the United States.-ChristopherMannMcKay 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree that the advert point is not valid. However, the article lacks independent sourcing attesting to the notability of the company as opposed to the product. I suspect that an article on the product would survive and creating one is my suggestion. BlueValour 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - copied from my talk page: BlueValour 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

what you wrote is in qoutes

"However, the article lacks independent sourcing attesting to the notability of the company as opposed to the product" What does 'the product' mean, are you talking about RFIQin? The two following links, [1] & [2] are non trivial and completely independent from Vita Craft; furthermore, they do not reference RFIQin. They both provide substantial amount of information, more than what is required according to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, which qualifies this company as notable. I do not understand why you posted comments that are the opposite of this. Do you feel that the two companies that I referenced are trivial and somehow connected to Vita Craft? I would like to know, because to my knowledge these web sites qualify as notablity under wikipedia guidelines. -ChristopherMannMcKay 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The second source is in Japanese so I am unable to comment upon it. The first source, from solidbizopps.com, does not, as yet, convince me as being appropriate since the role of that organisation is far from clear from their 'About Us' link. BlueValour 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)s

Comment Japanese Source Translated by Google - Here is a translated version, so you can see what the web site is about; it is hard finding sources in English, because Vita Craft is mostly sold in Japan. Please note this web site does not sell any type of Vita Craft products.

Vita Craft is on SolidBizOpps.com beacuse it is a multi-level marketing company, or a company that (in the United States) sells their products through individuals (like Cutco does). Accorinding to the web site, "SolidBizOpps.com has everything you need to succeed while starting a new business. You will find opportunities at any industry; thus, you must be ready to take advantage of them. Find everything you need to know concerning business opportunities, industries, franchises and recent news at SolidBizOpps.com. Do not let your fear overcome your strength and get ready, using the appropriate information, to build your own company." I know the web site is kind of crappy and might not get a lot of vistors, but a web site does not have to be popular or well-designed according to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, it just can't be trivial or connected to the company.

I hope this clarifies things. Please let me know if these sources do not qualify as primary criterion. ChristopherMannMcKay 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment While the solidbiz website does confirm this company indeed exists, it only provides directory-like information, giving nothing why this company warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory of information. —Ocatecir ^Talk 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment While I am aware Wikipedia is not a directory of information, it is an encyclopedia that references companies that are notable, which according to Wikipedia guidelines, this company is. According to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, “The secondary sources in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms.. ..except for the following: Carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.” The two sources ([3][4]) carry MUCH MORE than “directory-like information,” as Ocatecir claims. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia Guidelines, these two sources are not questionable sources because the sources do not "express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" I hope this clarifies things. -ChristopherMannMcKay 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am still not convinced this company is notable. Both sources are promotional in nature and do not contain independent analysis of the company, both read like advertisements. Solidbiz seems to be trying to sell the reader on the business opportunity that is Vitacraft. Upon examination of the main website, the stated aim of Solidbizopps.com is to provide "everything you need to succeed while starting a new business."+ The fact that few articles on the company exist from any publication and the promotional nature of the provided sources (one of which is in Japanese) tell the tale of a company that is not notable.

+ Examples of advertising-like language from the Solidbizopps source:

• "Vita Craft has grown through years of commitment and excellence."
• "They would like to help you find the opportunity that allows you the flexibility and freedom you want and most importantly, the opportunity that suits your personality."
• "the customers build lavish look"

These are not the words of an independent source. —Ocatecir ^Talk 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes your right, the Solidbiz source is horrible, I will remove it. But the Japanese source ([5]) is acceptable, beacuse to my knowledge, Wikipedia does not have any guidelines for the language of primary criterion. The company's products are popular in Japan, over 90% of sales if I remember correctly; some of the products arn't even sold in the United States, so that is why there arn't many Enlgish sources.-ChristopherMannMcKay 04:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you speak Japanese? If so, could you translate the Japanese source better? Google's translation is horrible (it is a machine after all). WP:ATT on language:

Note, "Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found," which is what is happening here. I will have my girlfriend translate it because she speaks Japanese and I will provide the original and the translated version as Wikipedia guidelines state. The previous quote reaffirms my point that Japanese sources are allowed and the Japanese source I provided ([6]) qualifies as primary criterion.-ChristopherMannMcKay 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Neither I or most other English-Wikipedia editors are going to be able to judge that until a better translation of the article is given. Right now the only remaining source is in Japanese and the google translation gives the same type of ad-words the other sources did. Because the only source is in a foreign language we have no idea if the article 1) proves notability 2) is written by an indpendent organization 3) if that organization is reliable and has a reputation for fact-checking. The format of the site makes it look like a blog (the "posted by" at the top of the article and the comments section at the bottom)—Ocatecir ^Talk 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The following was translated from http://ryouri.akekure.com/. Ryouri.akekure.com is completely independent from Vita Craft. The web site is not an online store, but is a review site for cooking related products, written by a staff of writers; it is not a Blog. This web site is not an advertisement for Vita Craft, even though parts of this article might sounds like an advertisement, it is because that is the way the Japanese language is structured.

Jeterato 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Start translation

Vita Craft, made in the United States, is a healthy cookware company that was created from as a result of research and development of two specialists from Seattle University and University of Wisconsin. The pans keep the natural taste of food and cook food in a healthy way.

Vita Craft is made on the basis of preventative medicine, “The health of the family should not be protected by taking medicine, but rather by using waterless, non oil, low temperature, and low pressure home cooking.” (Seems to be a quote from a Vita Craft spokesperson)

In other words, food can become medicine, but it can also be damaging. The type of cookware pots you use determines if you cook healthy food or damaging food.

Features of Vita Craft

-Has thermal efficiency, so the pans require less energy.

-Extensive 5-ply layer system.

-Can be used in multiple power sources, including Induction Heating of 200 volts.

-Can use cookware pans without excessive oil and can cook some items without oil.

-Can cook cakes without burning them like oven cooking often does.

-When you turn off the heat, the pans can still use heat stored inside the pans to cooke the food.

-Easy to take care of.

It has a long-term warranty of 10 years.

The most important feature of the cookware is the nutritional value that does not get destroyed because of waterless cooking. The lid to the cookware pans is designed with a vapor seal that makes it difficult for heat and moisture to escape. As a result, “waterless cooking” is possible to cook items like vegetables by using the water inside the vegetables. The loss of vitamins easily dissolves in water, likewise with waterless cooking, the loss of vitamins is held down to a minimum.

When cooking items like meat, you need less salt because the taste of the food is natural and because excessive oil is not used.

If you have not heard about Vita Craft pans until now, you might desire to buy the cookware.

You must get the price of Vita Craft from the official web site. While the cost may be high, the daily cost of energy will decrease, which will decrease costs in the long run.

Ranking of popular pots:

Gives ranking from 1 to 10 on the popularity of Vita Craft pans. (don’t think this needs to be translated).

End translation

• Do not delete I agree with Christopher on this. I have provided the translated source in English, so hopefully this problem can get resolved. I know for sure that the web site does not qualify as a questionable source, according to Wikipedia:Attribution.

Jeterato 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the translation. I will leave it up to other editors to decide if this is satisfactory. —Ocatecir ^Talk 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 100 person business is notable enough for me. (Per newspaper article). I suspect those 100 folks include some _very_ part times sales folks, but I don't know that.--Hobit 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That 100 persons does not include any sales persons, mostly office admin and factory personal. In the U.S., Vita Craft pans are sold by individuals (not employed by the company) that recieve commission for every item they sell. Vita Craft's factory is fairly large, they produce many products that are sold in most every department store in Japan; Vita Craft is also paid to manufacturer pans for Health Craft—a company based in Flordia. -ChristopherMannMcKay 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Do you have a link for that? A government document? I think it should be kept either way, but I'd love to see what there is and have the article provide that information.--68.40.58.255 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Comment

• I couldn't find government articles about how many current employees, but I found on the Kansas Department of Commerce & Housing 2002 Annual Report (page 62) a short paragraph about Vita Craft and it says 58 employees are being trained from the local community college to work in "process re-engineering, set-up reduction, project management, and effective supervisory skills" for Vita Craft.
• Rip off Report, a consumer complaint web site, states in a reply from David Night, office manager of Health Craft, said "Our manufacturing facility Vita Craft in Kansas City has been at the same location since 1939." Furthermore, on Health Craft's Offical Web Site, it says "Our manufacturing facility, in the heart of Kansas, has been producing top quality waterless/greaseless cookware since 1939, and in 1983 created Health Craft."

-ChristopherMannMcKay 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The sources are not overwhelming, but there seems to be just enough for a good faith argument that the notability guidelines are met. So, I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, article looks fine to me; a lot of business articles I come across look like this, or worse. The references are fine in my opinion. Even a slight deletionist like me leans keep in this case. →EdGl 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - My big complaint, correct me if I'm wrong, is the only contributors to the article have been the daughter of the CEO and (primarily) the guy she's dating. I wish people would take WP:COI more seriously. Such articles in no way are WP:NPOV and make us a joke of an encyclopedia. - Aagtbdfoua 02:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • (quoting above) Such articles in no way are NPOV and make us a joke of encyclopedia. Indeed, almost all "such articles" don't have a NPOV, but not this particular one, you must admit. Like I said, the article looks fine to me. →EdGl 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Aagtbdfoua, I generally agree with you. However, COI is about editors who have a conflict; the subject itself, if notable, should not be "punished" because the editors have a conflict of interest. That being said, I often support deletion in close cases with a COI aspect. In my opinion, this is now a decent article, having been cleared of most of the advertising (though the reference to the vision of high quality cookware should probably go), and has just enough referencing to justify inclusion.--Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "the reference to the vision of high quality cookware should probably go" I removed it. -ChristopherMannMcKay 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 18:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well-sourced.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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.