Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near Infinity Corporation

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. BJ^Talk 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Near Infinity Corporation[edit]

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy delete, no showing of importance. And guess what? They're a software development and consulting services business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep based on the references it may sqeak by the notability criteria (although it is definitely too spammy for my taste). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this article is only on the verge of being noteworthy since it isn't public and is small, but there are many other companies in this category such as SVM_(company) and DataSync. Near Infinity's article currently doesn't have as much content as those others, but if that's what's missing I'll work on it. I don't know how to reduce the feeling of the article being spam, but perhaps it comes back to quantity of content. And yes, I did get the category wrong I will fix that. Lprichar (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are those who say that "other stuff exists" is not a good reason to keep an article. I happen to disagree; precedent and analogy are perfectly good arguments to use in these discussions, and "other stuff" seems to discount them wrongly.

But SVM (company) is involved in the consumer gift card business, and as such of some general interest. It has received notice outside of trade publications of limited circulation. As for DataSync, thanks for calling it to my attention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:CORP, and while there's a load of references, the sources don't seem reliable. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (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.