Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahwan CyberTek

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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahwan CyberTek[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Extensive editing by COI editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, because this kind of text should be deleted on sight: ....in the business of providing software products and services to the global market. As a CMMi Level-5 organization, BCT employs 1500+ professionals with capabilities in engineering and product development, middleware and integration solutions, business process management, business intelligence, business process outsourcing and infrastructure management solutions. At any rate, Google News finds petty trade awards and press releases. So tagging. Also note one prior speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The initial revision was not 'unambiguous advert'. The promotional content was added later. See also G-News archives, they offer some interesting coverage. I've removed the speedy tag and reverted to a less promotional version. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references are fully sufficient to show notability , They include article from the major English -language Indian newspapers , articles that are substantially about the subject. (The ones just mentioned would be in addition to that, but the article can stand even without them. It's time people actually looked at the article history before nominating, as they're supposed to, instead of judging by the state the article happens to be in. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G11 and WP:B2B. The company can't be notable if it produced no notable products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources: The Hindu, The Economic Times, The Financial Express, and likely others. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COI/POV issues seem to be cleared up, and there certainly is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2012 (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.