Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoCepts LLC

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. and WP:SALT due to repeated recreation and attempt to evade salting of the previous title. RL0919 (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InfoCepts LLC (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)

Run-of-the-mill analytics consulting company. Does not satisfy corporate notability.

Google search shows that the company exists in India and the United States and has this Wikipedia article. No third-party coverage found.

Articles on company have been repeatedly created and deleted by likely conflict of interest editors. Now that this version has had most of the promotional fluff removed, there isn't much left. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, the stuff that differentiates this company [like employing the highest number of MicroStrategy-certified consultants, having our CEO on the Forbes tech council (which is invite-only), retaining its position among the top 40 data & analytics service providers worldwide (3 years in a row)], is being denounced as a mere advertising ploy. I do not contest that decision since you are the experts. I would like to put forth the question, however, that since the article is now strictly 'fluff-free', how does it harm Wikipedia's standing if it is included in your database? As I've mentioned before, all it contains is information, and isn't that the core purpose of your free encyclopedia? If you curate content based on whether it has 3rd party mentions, does that not align you with all the other encyclopedias out there? (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshVaidya (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No independant coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. References fail WP:NCORP by a wide margin -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see it's more than that. It's a WP:COI WP:FORK of InfoCepts, and apparently an end-run around Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 10. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems like their PR Firm keeps trying and failing to drum up notability out of nothing. Delete and block future attempts to recreate. ValarianB (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Exactly, User:RoySmith, an end-run. It is an example of why I added language to the guideline against gaming the system about the gaming of names in deletion and review a few weeks ago. (I added the language, after discussion at the guideline talk page, before this end-run, but because similar end-runs are common at AFC and AFD.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per WP:G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoCepts. Though that discussion happened a long time ago, I can't find anything to show that the subject now meets WP:NCORP notability requirements. Not to mention the blatant WP:COI... Jmertel23 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jmertel23 It would not be eligible for G4 because the article is not "substantially identical to the deleted version" (which is presently undeleted and visible in the article history since it is at deletion review). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: per Robert. It is just another company. It fails fails WP:NCORP, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt to stop further re-creations without NCORP sources. – Levivich 21:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Salting may require coding a regexp in the Title Blacklist, because this is a case where changing the name of the article, e.g., by inserting a suffix such as LLC, is being used to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist is overkill for something that's been created at two titles. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per above, there shouldn't ever be a "reward" for attempting to game the system. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:00, 16 December 2019 (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.