Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoBeans (2nd nomination)

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 02:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InfoBeans

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

Deleted 3 times now, once by AfD last year and this was actually unbelievable accepted at AfC within a month of its AfD deletion, everything listed here is simply advertising and simply because it's listed at the National Stock Exchange of India means nothing if it's still one thing: advertising and a blatant one at that because this was deleted once before by PROD but restored by request, deleted at AfD, and then restarted, so that shows the persistent advertising attempts, presumably by the company itself since there's only been one current account actively involved with this one article. The sources listed themselves are simply trivial PR, republished PR, trivial PR awards and accomplishments and other company activities, my own searches are also finding these. Therefore considering the apparent persistent PR attempts, I would suggest a Salting because given the past deletions, this should at least be reviewed once again and thoroughly before ever moving to mainspace again, if that should ever happen. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In fairness, from looking at the contributor's Talk page, there was some post-AfD discussion/guidance around the AfC draft before it was accepted. I have added a notice there to inform the article author of this AfD discussion. I have also requested that a Connected Contributor declaration be disclosed on the article Talk page.AllyD (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - the RS coverage I could find is corporate funding and ownership coverage and passing mentions, no WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The article has it's own importance but it was written like an add page. Rewriting is required. Runku4g (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Comment: See User_talk:VirtualAvi#Reply_from_author_VirtualAvi for input relating to this discussion from the article originator. AllyD (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't seem to address anything at all of my objections - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The content of this instance of the article concentrates on best-place-to-work awards, ratings firms' evaluations and CMMi accreditation, all of which may be gratifying for those involved but are not of encyclopaedic notability, along with the background activities of its founders which, if they are notable, are not inherited by the company. There is also the use of the firm as an example in a couple of case studies. In these and in repeating my searches from the February 2015 AfD there is sufficient to confirm this as a firm going about its business but insufficient to indicate that an article on the firm adds value to the encyclopaedia (rather than vice versa), so I am staying with my opinion from the AfD on the earlier article. AllyD (talk) 15:19, 19 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.