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. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zesty Health Ltd (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)

This company appears to be non-notable. Appears to fail WP:NCORP. There are two decent sources, but a quick google search doesn't really inspire confidence in notability. The article is also promotional, but that can be fixed. Notability can't. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The notification of the primary author was delayed until 20:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC). Please defer closing until 7 days after this time.[reply]

you don't have to delay closing, notifying author is optional.LibStar (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete blatantly fails WP:CORP. no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The company was only started as recently as May 2013, and has not done anything truly notable in that short timespan. Might pass WP:NCORP at a later date, but currently this article seems to be for only promotional purposes. Delete per nominator. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This effectively rests on the reliance placed on the recent article in The Economist. I would say it is a piece describing a startup proposition, which may or may not sustain, and as such falls short of attained notability at this time. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my WP:PROD rationale, which was contested: "Despite a couple of presumably-independent bits of press coverage, a "Google" search did not inspire confidence in this company's meeting Wikipedia's notability critieria." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per notability concern of nomination. Lesion (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (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.