Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intense 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 delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intense Technologies Limited

Intense Technologies Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Inadequately sourced article about a company. I am unable to find any sources beyond press releases, business listings and mere mentions that demonstrate that the subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 13:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent WP:RS sources. Sources provided are PR, incidental mentions of partnership, and company sites. Listing on the Bombay Stock Exchange is not in itself evidence of notability, and a search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 11:28, 9 March 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.