Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nettech


 * 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nettech

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The company founded by User:Spurkait, whose autobio article is now also at Afd, this Nettech has also been edited by banned sockpuppeteer account User:Maqs1231, whose article Nettech Ltd is also at Afd as part of a WP:Walled garden of spam articles. As for this Nettech, while it may well be a legitimate and worthwhile training provider, neither the copious references on the article nor what I find through my own search amount to enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as has coverage in reliable sources for training in The Telegraph (Indian News Paper) Telegraphindia.com so that WP:GNG is passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupido99 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: See also Articles for deletion/Swapan Purkait, Articles for deletion/Sunwest Solutions, and Articles for deletion/Nettech Ltd. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Telegraph India coverage seems like a decent one but we need more in-depth coverage about this entity. Additionally, article needs to be re-written by an unaffiliated editor and unless someone takes up this task, I'll stick to delete. Anup   [Talk]  22:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC
 * KEEP: The company is a valid consultancy and educational institute. The given list of references and citations are self explanatory, also every business company related wiki page has description about its history and services which is a primary core information. I have done a detailed verification and I'd like to inform you that all the information stated there are genuine. The points which have been raised are not applicable for this page.--Tirtha04 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is questioning whether the company is a valid company. What is being questioned is whether it meets the verified notability requirements necessary to have an article here. Not every company meets these requirements, and therefore not every company will (or should) have an article here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - fleeting coverage and passing mentions and brief name drops and small sentences but not in depth. Sagecandor (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is almost 8 years old. It was vandalised by some people recently. We should keep it. The article needs to be re-written by an unaffiliated editor. Stupido99 (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck this duplicate vote. You may only vote once in any discussion. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - none of the coverage can be considered as significant; the argument that it is 8 years old for keeping it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Spiderone  20:11, 24 November 2016 (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.