Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informatics India Ltd

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. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Informatics India Ltd

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unable to find significant coverage in independent secondary sources. The article is largely unsourced, has a promotional tone and relies on routine coverage. Likely COI editing. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 1999 journal article by James Heitzman (accessible through JSTOR in the Wikipedia Library) offers a thorough and independent history of the company. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the nominator, I was also unable to locate significant media coverage. And I agree with the nominator that the article, as currently written, has NPOV issues and relies on citations that do not demonstrate notability. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2020 (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.