Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avani Technology Solutions Inc

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avani Technology Solutions Inc (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)

• Delete: my searches yielded only
  WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  promotional, for instance the spam quoting in the references. Joseph2302 07:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 07:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 07:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject not notable, references all appear to be based on press releases. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete — Per nom and
  CSD G11. CSD tag added to article. Murph9000 (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Speedy declined (by another editor). The spam issues can be addressed, and the company is not unambiguously non-notable, which is why we're having this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see a

    WP:CCS in there when I added the CSD tag, I still don't see one now. I have no issue with the CSD being declined, it just seemed quite possible that the article might well meet the criteria, saving some time for everyone. I don't see notability either in the article or in Google. It's not so promotional now that it has been trimmed down, but still feels like a probable CSD A7 to me. Murph9000 (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Delete as corporate spam, likely written by a paid editor. In fact, I'm about 100% sure that the editing was paid due to sections on "History", "Locations" and "Products". Wikipedia is not a
  WP:WEBHOST for a company's web site material. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2016 (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.