Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiggy

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. —SpacemanSpiff 08:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swiggy

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

No evidence of notability. The majority of the refs are simply about it raising funds and the rest are either press releases or blogs. No evidence of any notability. For a 2014 formed company this is probably way too soon Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swiggy is extremely popular in Bangalore, where I live. They have a massive brand presence in this city, which is home to over 11.5 million people.

They've achieved similar penetration in the Gurgaon market. India's food delivery sector is a $15 billion industry, and these guys are on their way to becoming one of the market leaders. They've also raised considerable funds to do this. (source: The Hindu)

I feel that they've achieved more than enough notability to warrant a wiki page, and that you should leave this page undeleted. Jeremy Francis 12:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might be notable one day, but nothing to suggest that at present it's any more than any other startup. Noted that the article creator (and author of the "these guys are on their way to becoming one of the market leaders" comment above) is an undisclosed paid editor. ‑ Iridescent 12:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are indeed coverage of this entity in RS -- but almost of them are, raised X, parterned Y, etc. more like Routine coverage. There are one or two decent coverage, -Live mint, The Telegraph, -- but that's just not enough to help reach the company WP:CORPDEPTH standard. I echo nominator's rationale that it is "toosoon" for them. Anup [Talk] 20:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple articles about raising money are not notability about the product itself. At this time the product itself does not appear notable. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-It's a too-soon case.Also support the deletion per findings of Iridescent.Paid-editing shall be discouraged even at assosiated costs.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:32, 1 November 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.