Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalance Global solutions (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avalance Global solutions

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

Prior AFD was closed due to no consensus. For some reason, only the nominator and myself were involved. After several relisting, there was no other comment. This clearly should be deleted as failing notability. The article has been recreated under a different name, and there is sockpuppetry involved. See the original AFD for details. MB 02:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. The SPI page has been sitting untouched for a month. That would make this simpler, but I don't see any reason to keep this oage around until then. Manan Shah, Manan shah, and Manan Shah (Ethical Hacker) have been created and deleted 10 times in total. This is obviously advertising and gaming the system to get around those articles being salted. I'm not sure what's "ethical" about behavior like that. Grayfell (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I forgot Manan Rockx and Manan Rockx Hacker, which brings the total up to 12. Looking further, I've also found deleted articles under: Avalance, Avalance Inc., Avalance BPO, Avalance Helathcare Solutions, and Avalance Infocorp LLP, although some of those might be false matches. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we also have Draft:Manan Shah, which was just resubmitted though AFD for a third time without any substantial improvement from the last time it was declined. Grayfell (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been deleted after the first AfD. Number 5 7 18:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:CORPDEPTH easily and should be deleted per WP:NOTPROMO as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI hasn't concluded, otherwise it would have been eligible for a G5. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2016 (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.