Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webindia master

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webindia master

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

No significant coverage in the multiple reliable sources, therefore does not meet WP:NCORP standard and qualifies for deletion. It reads a bit WP:PROMOTIONAL as well. All sources cited in the article are the official website links of some companies, organizations, this company claims to have worked with.

Additionally, It is created by the WP:SPA User:Amrishtyagi (Amrish Tyagi), the founder of the company as per article. Not sure, how it managed to survive 4 months since it was created in the early this year. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional page for a firm offering ordinary wares (though I am intrigued by the idea of AltaVista search engine optimisation in this day and age). No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. As above, refs provided are corporate sites that may have been produced by the company and not significant coverage. A search turned up no RS coverage of this company.Dialectric (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2014 (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.