Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zomato


 * 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   no consensus. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Zomato

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable website Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The references are substantially to promotional pages and announcements of business decisions, reading like press-releases. No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. Has had substantial coverage in the indian media (the language of the indian financial media is often adulatory and can be mistaken for press releases). The references that are present now include - Outlook money, Indian Expess, DNA India, Business India - all top newspapers/magazines in india with circulation in millions.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The references are all to either pages making minor announcements (e.g one telling us that Foodiebay has changed its name to Zomato) or to promotional pages, apart perhaps from one which is now a dead link, so I don't know whether it ever was a useful source. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As stated above the references in the article include editorial articles in major reliable newspapers, which are neither minor announcements nor promotional pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what your concept of a "minor announcement" is, but to me an article the essential content of which is "a business has changed its name" looks pretty minor, and much the same applies to other articles. If a business hands out a press release to announce such a step then there is a good chance that one or more newspapers will write it up as an article, but that does not do much to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your description applies to three of the sources referenced, but certainly not to this, this and this, which are substantial articles in major newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you may be right, but that is not clear to me. business.outlookindia.com, for example, looks to me like a business promotion site, rather than an independent newspaper. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That reference is to a major news magazine, not a business promotion web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. It was not clear from looking at the linked web page that business.outlookindia.com was a part of Outlook magazine's site: it looked as though it might be a freestanding business promotion site. However, following your prompt I have searched further, and confirmed what you say. Thanks for putting me right. (It really would help if web site designers would make sure that it was clear what the nature of their site is, without the need to search around.) Nevertheless, both this article and the others look to me like write-ups of press releases. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, refs are primarily press releases. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. as above --KzKrann (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article is notable and referenced, even if this is very weak. Maybe worth re-buffing. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Highly trafficked website.. Marcus   Qwertyus   21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Of the 3 sources mentioned by Phil Bridger, "2" is most likely a press release but "1" and "3" look like legit supersources. I'd like to see more but I think that there's enough reasonable doubt and "when in doubt don't delete". We can always revisit this issue later. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2011 (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.