Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eatsa


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Eatsa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

pure advertising, no indication of notability at this time. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article could use some cleanup but there is more than enough coverage in reliable sources to establish this restaurant's notability. Meatsgains (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with comments from . Daylen (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep—Five sources, including New York Times, TechCrunch, and Investor's Business Daily support article meets WP:GNG. N2e (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as receiving clear, national non-trivial reliable source coverage, definitely not "no indication of notability". I was notified of this AfD discussion from N2e's talk page, though I had not seen this article before Appable (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Does not have a promotional tone and meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 11:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete with considerations to policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT which damn WP:CORPDEPTh and everything it would suggest because policy itself can and will remove anything unsuitable for Wikipedia and this fits it, since it's simply advertising for a year-old company, the Keep votes here as it is either say "per the other user" or then in fact say "sources exist" (these sources offered are literally in fact republished PR about the company and it's clear because the listed websites themselves list it, either casually or boldly). ::Therefore it's clear this itself, regardless of it being locally known, is only existing for advertising which is why policy allows removal of it, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG be damned. Things like these are quite simple as it is, because of the sheer amount of PR here that only consists of the company's own activities such as listing what they are planning or what they claim their own actions will be, deletion is quite simple here. SwisterTwister   talk  01:01, 25 November 2016 (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.