Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E la Carte

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. Keep !votes have been determined to be invalid. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E la Carte

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. References are press releases and/or advertorials and fail WP:ORGIND. No evidence of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the use of third-party sources, the tone of the article is indeed more a blurb than anything.TH1980 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Post is not in violation of WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG, and WP:ORIGIND as references are not directly linked to company website or press releases. Citations are provided from reputable and non-biased news sources. Please refer to citation #11 - This article was written by Alex Conrad of Forbes, who is a well known journalist. Most references provided on the page are in fact notable and are not self-promotional. User:LuckyHorse (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)— LuckyHorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article tone was indeed more like a corporate blurb and was outdated, but has now been partly edited. Still more edits are required. Company is notable for technology and payments industry influence, covered independently in respected secondary sources like USA Today, NBC News and FastCompany. Randor5602 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)— Randor5602 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the obvious SP/SPA keep-!votes, more discussion seems needed since the other delete !votes cite no policy or guideline and merely advocate deletion based on tone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two editors with Keep !votes above have been blocked as sock/meat puppets. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stroke out the "keep" votes by blocked editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you K.e.coffman. Note that the editors also !voted on a related article's AfD on Rajat Suri and I have struck their !votes there too. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The available sources cover routine news & product announcements. This (likely paid) WP:ADVOCACY can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no evidence this is paid or WP:Advocacy. This company and product is covered in-depth in technology publications like TechCrunch and appears to be commonly available in major restaurant brands where readers of Wikipedia eat. Also tone does not seem worse than other Wikipedia articles? 173.239.207.50 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike comment by blocked user; CU block. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with edits to add coverage. Other similar tech companies are written up on Wikipedia and deemed notable, like WePay and Hipmunk YouTooNow (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another newly created account !voting for Keep? What are the chances? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all then WP:Other stuff. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 21 June 2017 (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.