Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChefOnline

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. ✗plicit 14:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChefOnline[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Online food delivery service. Sent to draft by NPP twice, both times returned to mainspace - yet still lacks RS coverage. Despite the claim in the article that the company "gained significant media attention for organizing National Curry Week between 4th to 10th May of 2020" no coverage in RS is presented (I'm discounting the Bucks Free Press and Epping Forest Guardian here). Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NCORP, see table below. —siro χ o 09:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Asian Voice	press announcement			✘ No
Bangla Mirror	press announcement	~		✘ No
Delish.com			passing mention does not qualify for SIRS	✘ No
Metro	CEO quote	RSP		✘ No
Sheffield Star	executive quote	?		✘ No
Sky News	executive interview		?	✘ No
caterlyst.com	executive quote	?	routine coverage not enough for SIRS	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source table above shows nothing qualifies as a RS, I can't find much else that would support keeping it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As explained in the table, WP:GNG has not been met. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2023 (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.