Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EatOye (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Foodpanda. There is only one clear consensus here: That this should not exist as a stand-alone article. No consensus exists how to handle it, with delete and merge !votes being of equal weight, especially considering that neither WP:PROMO nor WP:PAID explicitly force us to delete material but mention deletion as a possible outcome (cf. WP:WHATISTOBEDONE which is part of WP:NOT and points among others to WP:ATD-R).

On the other hand, there is no agreement that there is really anything worth merging. In the end, the only thing that enjoys some consensus is to redirect to Foodpanda (since redirecting is part of merging and none of the delete !votes have mentioned any reason why this is not a likely search term). I am leaving the history in place so anyone who thinks there is something mergeable can pick content from there but redirecting and not slapping a merge to banner on it is the only way to ensure that the main consensus - that this should not be a stand-alone article - is followed.

Regards  So Why  11:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

EatOye
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy, apply given the promotionalism has not changed a year later and, worse, one of the last AfD voters was an uncovered paid user therefore casting questions all around. In a vote last comment, someone said WP:V was satisfied but a ToU violation like this immediately outweighs that; worse when WP:GNG is not an automatic factor, but instead a "possibility of an article", not guarantee. The offered sources before were no better:
 * 1-3, 7, 8, 9 (the latter 3 especially sharing the same format style) a labeled announcement
 * 4 is a self-serving indiscriminate press release
 * 5 is a general business award for one specification, therefore not significant
 * 6 is a company funding roll
 * 10 is a business column for several companies, not only this one
 * 11, 12 and 13 are all local interest stories, showing no independent coverage outside their business Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 16:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  17:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  17:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  17:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

*Keep - "Pakistan’s largest online food portal". Whatever the state of the article maybe, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Satisfies WP:GNG. See: ET BR & TechInAsia. Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC) (WP:SOCKSTRIKE])
 * Delete as per nom. Alexius08 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the view of the sources given above is exactly right.  DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Whatever the state of the article" is exactly what our policies show to be deletion material, at all costs. How would the article be successfully improved in order to resolve? SwisterTwister   talk  04:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and also fails WP:GNG.  Greenbörg  (talk)  17:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Should have been requested for speedy deletion.(G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion) FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is not promotional, so WP:G11 does not apply. Cunard (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/EatOye participants and closer:, , and . (I am not pinging the two blocked users in the discussion.) Cunard (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Merge or Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by . That EatOye is "Pakistan's largest online food portal" strongly establishes notability. The sources allow EatOye to pass Notability. I've read the article and do not consider it promotional. Cunard (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Modified to add "Merge". Cunard (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The relevant concerns here are WP:What Wikipedia is not which a policy with a higher degree of importance over WP:Notability (with the latter clearly stating: "Must not be excluded under [policy] and [be] outside the scope of Wikipedia policy". SwisterTwister   talk  04:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is neutrally written so it does not violate What Wikipedia is not. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have changed my comment above to say I am fine with either a keep as a standalone article or a merge as suggested below by Gargleafg. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as the genuine concerns here are founded in genuine policies: WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Not newspaper, WP:Not promotion, WP:Not webhost, WP:Not catalog and WP:Not advocacy; we honestly shouldn't need a clearer basis for such a deletion beyond these. That we should make an exception for one business as opposed to others is unreasonable and unconvincing to our goals here, and certainly this wouldn't be such a place for changing such standard policies. SwisterTwister   talk  04:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 08:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into Foodpanda. I think this argument is a moot point as EatOye is being rebranded as the already notable Foodpanda, a similar German company that bought EatOye in 2015. I personally think there's plenty of material that could be included in a standalone EatOye article if the current one was rewritten from a purely neutral point of view. But I don't think it'll matter when EatOye rebrands to Foodpanda. Gargleafg (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into Foodpanda per . Seems like the obvious solution. AdA&D  14:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: per SwisterTwister. Violates our core content policies.    Dr Strauss   talk   20:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Foodpanda and / or Delete -- not independently notable and clearly spam content. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to merge, as they couldn't apparently even afford a proper wiki-spam-hack that would add inline refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - This reference, which shows published in print and online, talks about the merging of the companies. Doesn't need to be anything in detail, just a sentence in the Foodpanda article stating that it purchased the company. I can do so if someone pings me when this closes (if it closes as merge). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Since it was clearly written in violation of Wikipedia core policy of WP:PROMO it should be deleted. Any editor may create it in the future if written in conformity with WP policies and guidelines, because even if trimmed of merged now the original non neutral content can easily get its way back through subtle means. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Coming back through "subtle means" can happen in both cases unless the title is salted. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 17:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Foodpanda. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  06:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Foodpanda. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:11, 24 October 2017 (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.