Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Computer Solutions
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Infinite Computer Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:CORP and appears to be spam Nakon 04:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely looks like spam. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep per WP:LISTED. Has enough secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG.[1][2][3] --Nayvik (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed some of the promotional jargon-speak ("competencies", "client verticals" or whatever) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 02:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It looks okay...spam sentences are gone...--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — neturality issues have been addressed, and it meets WP:CORP. Feezo (Talk) 08:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; satisfies WP:CORP. bobrayner (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2010 (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.