Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INSZoom (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

INSZoom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:ORG. only 2 news hits. Ushau97 talk 17:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

*Don't Delete. The above page is about a company which has been widely recognized and has received lots of accreditations. In my opinion the above article only shares the facts which has reliable sources, and is not promoting their products in any manner. Reconsider the AfD. MrNiceGuy114 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Struck vote from blocked sockpuppet. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Business making "immigration software", which I gather really is software for businesses to check the immigration status of potential employees.  That's a long list of petty trade awards and Top 10 lists of other non-notable businesses, but nothing makes a case for significant effects on history, technology, or culture.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Looks as if it has a program to generate paperwork to get people into UK and US. Is that about legal immigration?  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject appears to have received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources. That being said, the subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in those non-primary reliable sources, and it is my opinion that if taken in total they do not add up to one significant coverage content article/source. Therefore, failing WP:GNG, it is my present opinion that the company is not yet notable enough to warrant notability as Wikipedia defines it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

*Don't Delete. The article is about an immigration software company, which is accredited by NASSCOM, Stevie Awards and Best of San Ramon. The above article doesn't promote their products in any manner through the article. 115.242.249.144 (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Struck vote from blocked sockpuppet. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Writeindia (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not for Deletion. The above is a general encyclopedic article of a recognized immigration software company. The clientele includes Microsoft, IBM, BP etc, which makes the above company is good to be in Wikipedia.

*Don't Delete. I support MrNiceGuy114's opinion. Reconsider AfD and close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer107 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)  Struck vote from blocked sockpuppet. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article currently reads like a press release or a promotional brochure.  In order for an article on this topic to remain, the article really needs to discuss what the software in question does, what its competitors are, and what distinguishes it from other software products in the same market.  There should also be critical commentary on the company and its product(s), giving a balanced and neutral set of perspectives.  If the article can be improved in these ways, it may be salvageable; otherwise, it should be deleted.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

-- Ushau97 talk 11:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it is being suggested that, , , and may all be the same person.  This issue should be cleared up, one way or the other, before deciding how to weigh the input of these users.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the primary contributor to the article (Writeindia) has been blocked for a week for sockpuppetry, it might possibly be appropriate to put this AfD on hold until he is able to respond to the issues raised here. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

DigitalJournal, SysCon Media, SiliconIndia, PressRelease, SiliconIndia, YahooNews, Businessweek --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reslist comment: As we had issues with sockpuppets and a late flurry of sources provided, another week would probably be useful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

*Keep I don't find any genuine reason to delete the article because the article has clear citations to prove that it is a notable company. But I do feel the language can be neutralized and relevant references can be added for reconsiderationAngeldiv.87 (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Angeldiv.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck contribution confirmed as a sockpuppet of Writeindia.  Spinning Spark  13:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Most, if not all, of the additional sources found by Titodutta are press releases or company submitted puff pieces.  It would take a rather more selective list of sources to convince me.  By the way, I think it is rarely helpful to keep open a sock infested debate like this one.  Spinning  Spark  22:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the "impressive" list of "references" are just press releases from the company. SalHamton (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was looking for immigration software and stumbled upon this article and the company. From my research, I find it notable enough to be on wikipedia.Here is the link Also, the article didn't seem promotional to me. Though the recognitions can be better framed to be meeting the WP:ORG PriyankaLewis (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This page is about a notable company which has been consistently ranked among the Top 100 IT innovator, Top 100 Enterprise Software, 50 Outstanding Asian American Business etc, and is recognized by NASSCOM and Asian American Business Center. . Hope this complies the policies and eligibility criteria of Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Please share your views! Thanks. Writeindia (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC) This contributer has been identified as the a sockmaster abusing this AFD.  Spinning  Spark  13:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hemanandy (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Struck contribution from user identified as a likely sockpuppet of Writeindia.  Spinning Spark  13:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * KeepI believe that the company INSZoom is a well recognized and notable immigration compliance and global mobility Software Company.
 * Comment, in view of the ongoing socking, I strongly urge the closing admin to speedy close this AfD and not to relist it. I again urge that the page is salted to prevent a repeat of this circus.  Spinning  Spark  14:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please carefully study the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG), which expects "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Essentially all the sources cited so far are reprints of press releases, which are explicitly listed as a kind of source that is not considered independent for purposes of satisfying the GNG.  The fact that a press release has been republished by a reliable news source is not enough to make it independent of the subject.  If INSZoom truly is as noteworthy as is being claimed, then there should be numerous independent sources discussing the company without basing their comments primarily or exclusively on the company's own self-promotional material.  Even assuming the editors writing here in favour of keeping this article were not sockpuppets, their arguments are not policy-based, because they are putting forward sources of a type not considered acceptable per the GNG.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.