Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EatOye

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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

EatOye

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor in terms of coverage they provide. No depth coverage by independent media for its notability but script given to large media group. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria for companies. Once in a lifetime coverage in popular media is not enough to be part of its significance. or being released as press or promotional exercises. Light2021 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of English-language Pakistani news sources about this company that cover this in-depth, without having to apply
The Business Recorder,[1], [2] [3] [4] [5] The Express Tribune, [6] [7], [8] The News International, [9] The Nation, [10], and Dawn. [11], [12], [13] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merely the coverage does not define its notability standards. As nominated the reasons, such companies are able to garner enough PR at once for their own promotions. After-all all the mention agencies are commercial in nature as well. Once in a lifetime coverage does not harm anybody. By this logic Wikipedia will end and become directory for such companies which somehow succeeded in publishing themselves in popular media. Light2021 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per significant coverage listed above by Patar Knight. As for "Merely the coverage does not define its notability standards", actually, it does. The relevant policy is
WP:GNG, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This company has received this type of coverage, as evidenced above, and it therefore meets our notability guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I am satisfied with the sources provided by Patar Knight.
WP:V is available, therefore it should be kept. Mar4d (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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.