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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zest.md[edit]

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

Article created with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. Appears to mainly be cobbled together bits of promotional sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I merged the refs so it's easier to see how many there are and to refer to them with a single number. Ref #1 has a single paragraph with Zest.md as one of 64 startups. I don't fully undertand #3, but it seems to be a PR and startup promoter, so not a third-party source in the journalistic sense, more of a business partner. #4 (New Indian Express) is a short news article, but a reliable source. #6 Redorbit is a web site, but with no editorial policy or panel listed, so I would say not a reliable source. (Also note it was sued by Microsoft for defrauding its advertisers.) I can't get a response from #5 or #6 so those are unknowns. All told, I believe this fails WP:NOTABILITY. LaMona (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the point about notability and reference but the link you shared does not seems regarding Zest.md, it says RedOrbit did the fraud. - IMDJ2 14:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, nothing unique. Clearly advertorial. Chhandama (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2014 (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.