Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TazaMart


 * 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 delete. The updated sources did not impress later voters and the degree of promotion is a problem. A non promotional article is likely possible so explicitly saying recreation permitted if done by a neutral editor sticking closely to sources. Spartaz Humbug! 10:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

TazaMart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article with trivial coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. Störm  (talk)  10:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Although I agree with Störm  that the existing article has a promotional tone. Actually, I am amused myself after discovering probably along with many others, that online shopping and delivery (Amazon type) is also catching on in Pakistan. Anyway, 5 listed references out of 7 worked, when I last checked. One reference is from Dawn (newspaper) and one other reference is from Business Recorder business newspaper. My best guess is that the original article creator has not yet learned how to give inline citations and correct references on a Wikipedia page. Not a big deal, I can do that for them and also try to remove the promotional material. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article has other issues related to reference style, etc. Those issues should be addressed. But I think it is notable enough so I would vote for keep.   M A A Z     T A L K   22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep while the fprmatting pf the citations isn't up to snuff, the articles cited provide very substantial coverage --of this business. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Fixed 3 references and cleaned up the article on 1 February 2018. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The listed references do not establish notability. Created by a SPA, it may be the case of SEO.  samee  talk 08:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I am somewhat puzzled by the above comment by about notability? In my edit of the above article 3 or 4 days ago, I had tried my best to remove the promotional material and had made it a very short stub and 'factual type' Wikipedia article. Since then, User:Störm has further edited it on 2 February 2018 and has removed some external links that he thought were not RS except for Business Recorder business newspaper which he left alone. Now the article has 2 references to Dawn (newspaper) and The Express Tribune newspapers. The Express Tribune article from 2016 is a fairly long in-depth article on online shopping in Pakistan where TazaMart's company business is compared with all its competitors. Just now checked article's Wikipedia 'Revision history' and I saw only one editor's name crossed out with a black line but he is NOT the article creator. It's someone who later edited the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It would be WP:TOOSOON for a standalone entry. The listed references don't specifically compare TazaMart with her competitors. I'm more inclined towards Online grocery shopping in Pakistan or List of online grocery shops in Pakistan etc. for the time being.  samee  talk 07:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There are two references that, in my opinion, just about meet the criteria for establishing notability. This tribune.com.ok article just about meets the criteria as there is sufficient independent analysis/optinion on aspects of Tazamart's business. This dawn.com reference also just about meets the criteria and although it doesn't contain a lot of in-depth information, it has enough and it also provides independent opinion. But the others fail. This dawn.com article provides no in-depth information on the company and relies on information provided by the companies and others in the sector and does not provide any independent analysis or opinion, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This brecorder.com reference only namechecks the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I cannot find any other decent references.  HighKing++ 15:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added a couple of sources, not previously mentioned in the article. Express tribune has mentioned it, also dawn news. I think it has sufficient notability atleast for a stub.   M A A Z     T A L K   09:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable online grocery store. The article is a directory listing / promo page, with language such as: "As of 2016, TazaMart has almost 10,000 products in its inventory that customers can choose from"! Etc. Such articles are explicitely discouraged; see WP:NOTSPAM. In addition, fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- just a private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see anything that says this is more than just a plain old on-line grocery store.  Maybe somebody could write an article about On-line shopping in Pakistan, and this would be a part of that, but I don't see it being an article on it's own.  The WP:COI from this being written by a WP:SPA is a factor.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2018 (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.