Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SunTec Business Solutions

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SunTec Business Solutions (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 software business. Neither the references listed nor a Google search show in-depth coverage to meet corporate notability. Providing "solutions" is not notable (although that language could be trimmed out if the company were notable). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article has a history of promotional editing. Two of the contributors to this article have been blocked, one as a spam account and one for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fails Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH.  FITINDIA  17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, with only 1 possibly independent ref, the brief article from Hindu Business Line. The two financialexpress.com articles is PR written by Businesswire India - other pieces by this source show it is solely a writer of company PR stories. A search turned up no additional significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with changes - I originally started this article many many years ago. But now it looks like a page entirely filled with promotional material. I would suggest to keep the article by reducing its size considerably. I shall try and edit the promotional material out. Shall try to add more authentic references too. If that appears fine, it is best to keep the article. -- Xrie (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to the article, and have added additional references. Appreciate if all could take a look at the latest version. -- Xrie (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a news search shows some promising hits, such as this New Indian Express article about the CEO winning an award. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any chance you could link to the promising hits you've come across? Because the New Indian Express reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as the company is only mentioned in passing as part of the title of the CEO. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's this Times of India piece, and this one in The Hindi (which are the top two from a Google News search) - I'll also add my general caveat that Indian topics do not generally have the same level of online source coverage as those in the UK and US. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ritchie333. I've already commented on both the timesofindia piece below. It fails as a reliable source since there is no attributed journalist and also the article states "This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is auto–generated from a syndicated feed we subscribe to" at the bottom. The thehindu.com piece fails the criteria for establishing notability at multiple levels. There is no original opinion and analysis in the piece and therefore not intellectually independent and is a PRIMARY source, relies entirely on quotations from a company exec and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and has no attributed journalist so fails as a reliable source. The criteria for establishing notability are different from those for relying on claims made in articles. For example, while a published interview (with no independent opinion or analysis) will always fail the criteria for establishing notability, the same reference may be used as a reference to support a claim. If you've any more references, post them here and if we can find two that meet the criteria for establishing notability, I'm very happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find additional authentic references to add to this piece. Therefore, in view of the general guidelines of Wikipedia, I agree that the subject of the article is no longer notable (based on authentic third-party online references). I checked for references and facts from published works, and could not find any. Therefore, I would like to vote Delete on the relisted post. -- Xrie (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are not enought references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and as such, topic fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. This thehindubusinessline reference fails WP:ORGIND fails WP:ORGIND AND WP:CORPDEPTH since it is entirely based on an interview with the CEO with no independent opinion or analysis. The next thehindubusinessline reference fails WP:ORGIND as is a company announcement and/or fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is based on quotations from the CEO. This financialexpress article in relation to the company's inclusion in a list of 100 fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on company PR. Finally, this indiatimes reference fails as a reliable source since there is no attributed journalist and the article states "This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is auto–generated from a syndicated feed we subscribe to" at the bottom. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I originally created this article several years ago, I am unable to find additional authentic references to add to this piece. Therefore, in view of the general guidelines of Wikipedia, I agree that the subject of the article is no longer notable (based on authentic third-party online references). I checked for references and facts from published works, and could not find any. Therefore, I would like to vote Delete on the relisted post. -- Xrie (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My searches are finding the routine announcement coverage which befits a company going about its business, but, as with others above, nothing better than the brief Hindu Business Line interview. Without in-depth critical coverage this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2017 (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.