Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITC Infotech

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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITC Infotech

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

This article's been csd-deleted a total of 7 times and keeps coming back, so I'm listing it here for community input and if it leans toward delete (again) I'd be of the mind to WP:SALT it to keep it red. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into parent company article. I don't see this passing WP:CORP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing some odd behavior here. The article seems to have been created by a "farm" of SPAs. The initial author has also created Altimetrik, another corporation that doesn't seem to meet wp:corp, and SoftSol, also very poorly referenced. In any case, This looks like paid editor activity, but the customers are not getting their money's worth. This article is primarily referenced to PR sites, and does not meet criteria for notability. LaMona (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2015 (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.