Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FACT Software International Pte Ltd

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. Notability has not been established as required by WP:NOTE. The majority of sources used in the article do not even mention the company with a such name (i.e. FACT Software International Pte Ltd). Ruslik_Zero 15:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FACT Software International Pte Ltd[edit]

Delete, Doesn't estblish notability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Not finding much in Google news to support its notability beyond a press release (primary source) and a lawsuit the company was involved in.--RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Don't bring AfDs within one minute of the page being created. The company was renamed, and there's sufficient sources: Business Standard, 2005, Hindu Business Line, 2001, Hindu Business Line, 2005, The Independent (Bangladesh), Indiatimes 2005, Indian Express 2000, Financial Express 2008. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. The article was nominated for deletion within one minute of being created. Absurd. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm sorry you feel this way, would waiting three more minutes have helped? This easiluy could've been a csd tag however it is on the edge so I opened the AFD discussion, if this is against policy please find it and point it out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Read WP:BEFORE. Not even one step in that can be completed within the one minute between the creation of this article and the AfD. The three AfDs you created between 02:57 and 03:07 are all in clear violation of WP:BEFORE.-SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i don't see anything relavent to your concern this was nominated too early. So far as that goes I did the best good faith thing I could opened this up to our community then nominating for csd. I don't understand what the problem is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out so far you are the only keep vote so that weakens the arguement in and of itself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated not one minute after initial creation, but over eleven hours - possibly significantly longer; I can't see the deleted revisions. The first post-deletion revision is apparently identical to the version that was speedied, complete with {{advert}} tag. —Korath (Talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources. All the "articles" linked by Spaceman7Spiff are press releases, not independent coverage. —Korath (Talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move it parent company Vedika Software - there are several good source available under this name ([1]) and no this aren't all press releases despite the assertion that they are above. I also agree that an article's creator should be given more than 1 minute to write an article before sending it to AfD. Articles are not usually created in one pass and immediate nomination for deletion might scare a contributor off before they've had a chance to finish. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vedika Software might merit an article. This, which was itself copy-pastes of press releases in its first revision, isn't it. At minimum, I'd want to see even one statement referenced to an article that does not also appear, word-for-word, in the company web site's press releases section. —Korath (Talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough here to salvage, delete and create Vedika Software on it's own merits which appear to include availability of some 3rd party references, unlike this article.--RadioFan (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep latest revision looks to be properly sourced and verifiable riffic (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment except all references are about the parent company, not this company.--RadioFan (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For all those that are harping on the name, the company changed names as per this page on their site, relevant text: FACT Solutions India Pvt Ltd (Formerly known as Vedika Software Pvt Ltd) and also moved HQ from India to Singapore. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be anything about this specific company. There is no rule preventing an article being nominated for AFD at any particular time. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2009 (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.