Deletion of ChefsBest

Comment: an interesting one. It has all the hallmarks of a "|promotional" article but a closer reading suggests it's actually a cleverly disguised attack page. The mention of payment in the introduction without any further analysis of commercial methodology, the suggestion that every product reviewed has been given an award and the use of the word "purports" to qualify an otherwise fairly |neutral analysis of methodology all suggest this article has morphed into a "back-handed compliment". The only sources provided are from the company itself, so what from those sources would have encouraged editors to produce a now fairly negative article is unclear. I think the original article was probably created to be promotional but "spam fighters" have now qualified and re-qualified different sections to the point where it is now the total opposite. Very strange. All of that aside, I agree with the nominator that the subject has probably not received enough significant coverage to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO||WP:NPOV||WP:CORPDEPTH)