Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delivery4tip

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 move to Alex Konanykhin. Delivery4tip comes from the discussion as a non-notable company. Yet some opinions suggest that the company owner may be notable enough for inclusion. (I moved the article, did a rough copyedit to turn the focus to Alex Konanykhin notDelivery4tip, kept the redirect, and tagged for notability to call some more eyes to take a look at it) - Nabla (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery4tip[edit]

Food delivery company. Has been deleted once as spam. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability in news, no good third-party references. Atyndall93 | talk 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Move relevant info to Alex Konanykhin as sources indicate he may be notable. No indication of notability for Delivery4tip, Delete. Paulbrock (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt if this is a re-creation of a previously deleted article. Even if not, still a non-notable local business. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number of references seems to confer notability. (It's clearly not spam currently, so even if it is a recreation, it can't be re-speedied.) Powers ^T 12:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references dont even mention "Delivery4tip", let alone offer significant coverage. Paulbrock (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the six references, two have "Delivery4tip" in their titles, and the second certainly does mention it. Those three sources are sufficient to establish notability in my view. The three that don't (I'm taking your word on the video since I don't feel like watching the whole thing) may contain other details that were used in the writing of the article. Powers ^T 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the video is about Konanykhin, no mention of Delivery4tip. Re the 2nd Miami Herald reference, the closest article I can find in the Miami Herald online archives is [1], which doesn't mention Delivery4tip in the title. I've also tried to find any info on the CBS4 website but was unable to find that report, which I would imagine didn't have an 'official' title. That gives me 1 source I can't check (CBS4), 3 sources which have zero mention of the article topic (Guardian, Business Week,Baltimore Sun) and two articles credited to the Miami Herald, of which, to be fair, 1 is certainly about delivery4tip. The other appears to have had its title changed by the article's authors. On this basis, I'm not satisfied that notability is asserted for Delivery4tip, but there does seem to be a lot of info available for Alex Konanykhin. Paulbrock (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant example of non-notable local business. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article and I believe CBS and Miami Herald are reliable third-party references for this article, making it notable. There are other references that are related with the CEO/owner of the company as well. I could have included more references but they are not reliable third-party references and would definitely flag my article for speedy deletion. I see that this was spammed before, is this what's marking it for deletion? This is my first article and I've read the wikipedia guidelines thoroughly. I've also compared this to other similar articles, such as Seamless Web. Jdr123 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The business delivery4tip seems to be tangential to the man who owns it. Most of the articles are about his checkered past. HE probably deserves a page (assuming it could meet BLP), but the business seems borderline. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (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.