Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventom Network India


 * 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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ventom Network India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: This is perhaps a very tricky AfD nomination with 97 references cited. I am still making this bold AfD nominating due 1) This is completely written as advertisement 2) Most of the references cited are either self-published, blogs, paid advertisement or even e-commerce sites c) This company is not notable otherwise and certainly not a "Conglomerate" as termed in the article.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as the article, whether intended or not, looks more like a personal and promotional page and the sources are not enough weight and my searches found much less, with this being the best I found. Initially, I was going to wait until more familiar users commented but I think it's clear here. SwisterTwister   talk  17:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Has anyone thought to try to clean up its tone, or is deletion thought to be the only possible option???   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since when are we responsible for cleaning up advertisements? Just a thought. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  19:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, at times, if the article is still salvageable and I've almost nominated some articles until I found enough to improve it. However, this one still has sourcing issues. SwisterTwister   talk  19:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. You have a point SwisterTwister but then in the same lines my opinion is that this is not salvageable for now. Cheers,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * : In response to above, when anyone deigns to edit Wikipedia and makes a choice to evaluate the work of others, they never ever "have" to improve anything... but please take a look at WP:SEP and understand that while you might choose to not, I personally choose to improve Wikipedia by improving articles claimed unsavable by someone else.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Maybe someone can boil down the article and see if anything worthwhile remains? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Unambiguous advertising-- . Shlok  talk. 11:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a spam that uses WP:REFFLOOD to mask its nature (Masking the lack of notability). If anyone can point out how his meets WP:NCOMPANY, ping me here. I don't see any reliable refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:03, 4 September 2015 (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.