Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikhav-Infotech
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rikhav-Infotech[edit]
- Rikhav-Infotech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
| Advanced search for: "Rikhav-Infotech" | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
All references are from personal website and non-reliable references.
No references found in:
- News
- Books
- Scholars
- Images.
No reliable third party references. Delete and Keep per nomination. Alice.michelle16 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're only supposed to !vote one way... Then again, I'm not sure if that is a rule or a custom. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
- Delete Appears non notable. If reliable third party references are located, I will re-evaluate.Stormbay(talk) 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established through reliable third party sources. SeaphotoTalk 21:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ye gods, that was hard reading. Repetitious, disjointed, and on if not over the borderline of spam, it fails for me to credibly show any notability for the company. Why do people say 'pitches for' - especially when they're not in a baseball nation but a cricketing one? Whatever the reason, it suggests spam and/or copy&paste. The references seem to fail WP:RS. The nomination is on the ground of lack of referencing - I consider the lack of notability more important. A notable subject without references can be cured. I don't think this one can. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. More generic tech-cruft from a field where every bit player seems to imagine that it rates an encyclopedia article. This business specializes in offering a variety of IT services by Outsourcing the work of companies located in diverse locations across the globe. In other words, they don't really deal with the general public under their actual name, did not originate the sorts of service they perform, and perform it to someone else's direction. Absent very unusual circumstances firms of this sort don't do anything with the sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance that turns them into encyclopedia subjects. Nothing here makes that case; rather, it's all about offering a bouquet of services that are innovative at their heart and yet uncompromising in the quality and work ethic they bring to any and every project.
A similar bit of word salad turned up in the article beneath Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GM Infotech. Perhaps these are generated with Markov chain text generators. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. It has some content problems but the promotional tone might be fixed through normal editing. The main problem is a lack of independent sources discussing the company; the kind of thing that would satisfy WP:CORP. Citing [1] is the least bad thing in the article - a couple more sources in that vein could sway me to keep. bobrayner (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks independent coverage in third party reliable sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete take a look at the talkpage to see how much of a joke this article is. Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2010 (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.