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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YourGrocer.com[edit]

YourGrocer.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity.Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete two bits of startup churnalism then nothing. (The third source does not mention the article topic.) No evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is essentially actually speedy material but it may simply be boldly removed with the listed NYT source is which of course thin and not substantial to support and save this article, nothing here is anything but advertising what the business and services are hence PR, and therefore something we delete with no questions asked. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- strictly a WP:PROMO; with no indications of notability or significance. Close to A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The New York Times articles doesn't address WP:CORPDEPTH, and the CBS article doesn't even mention YourGrocer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of sources and also parts of it look like advertising. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no claim of significance here, much less coverage, and this can be speedy deleted per A7, G11. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. It may in the future, though. Here's a couple of sources that are not in the article: [1], [2]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 9 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.