Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay Telecom

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. KTC (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Telecom

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found here, here, here and here. This also hasn't changed much since starting in July 2010. Pinging WhisperToMe, Lor and Ronz, Peridon, HJ Mitchell and author Ajay.KV. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Not really sure what to think of it, seems like a lack of WP:GNG, but i'm not completely sure. i'm also wondering why i got pinged here, as i only made a semi-automated edit which was in slight error. Lor^Talk 07:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still think it's spam... References are not reliable independent sources, and it doesn't show notability. Only that they 'offer' things... Peridon (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor(s?) paid by Clay Telecom to edit the article have failed to find any secondary sources after all these years. Maybe this discussion will get someone to look one more time. A WP:COIN discussion should probably be started regardless of the outcome here. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Yash!, AKS.9955, SpacemanSpiff and Human3015. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company not notable. One source is a PR release, one press release and third is Linkedin profile. Just another company doing regular business. Article appears to be advertisement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like spam. The article is clearly an advert and I am not able to find sources for the claims made. The best I could find were this and this. The former talks about the company with a promotional tone while the latter is a press release. Yash! 04:35, 8 November 2015 (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.