Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newgen Software Technologies Limited


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  05:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Newgen Software Technologies Limited

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I stopped at Google page 15 of hits on this company. Most are minor mentions, but the mentions appear to be endless. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As per VMS Mosaic. I ran the same google search, added 1 article to page.  This sort of thing is a waste  of time.  Editors who list articles without doing a good-faith google should be sanctioned.  I believe that the proper sanction would be for the editor to find 3 notable poorly written or poorly sourced articles and bring them up to snuff.  Honestly, too many AFDs are a total wast of time.  Current case in point: David D. Cole Well sourced article filled with obvious claims to notability, but someone posted it at AFD yesterday.  End of rant.ShulMaven (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - A news search reveals plenty of press releases, but also plenty of good sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2014 (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.