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. The Times of India article merely quotes the company's CEO on another topic and so is not coverage of the company, and the DNA "article" is merely a press release. All other keep !votes are without basis in policy or guidelines. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions Infini[edit]

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

Company does not meet WP:CORP. Most of the given refs are press releases. Dewritech (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Company is unique and is well known for what is does over here in India. Some references appear to be press releases, but other eferences check out. Recommend article not be deleted. Taylor.fu]] (talk) 4:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I get a bunch of SMSs from these guys. Keep the article, seems legit and a source of community knowledge. 115.115.115.66 (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Jay[reply]
I created the article. I put a lot of work into it, and tried my hardest to maintain an extremely neutral tone and to cite any facts that may be questionable. I made this article because this company is the biggest player in it's field, and almost all Indians get messages via them. Please keep • bariummessiah (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little coverage outside of press releases. None of the "keep" !voters above are making policy-based arguments. If you think the company is notable, you need to provide sources to prove it. Just saying "I've heard of it" isn't good enough. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Times of India and DNA are two pretty big papers. If they have articles about your company, it must be notable enough. The other users also mentioned how it's the biggest player in its area of expertise which seems to be SMS tech Kochigirl (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that Kochigirl's user page was created by User:Bariummessiah, the creator of this article. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, SPI FYI. Stalwart111 14:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 25. Snotbot t • c » 10:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lack of policy-based argument from the "keep crowd" suggests creation but someone or a group of someones that just don't understand basic WP policy. Single lines from the company's founder/CEO don't constitute "significant coverage", regardless of where they are printed. The DNA "article" is just a reprint of material from PR Newswire - a press release publishing service - and the article credits someone from the company and the Zeenews "article" is the same. There just isn't enough there to constitute WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 10:27, 25 July 2013 (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.