Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity learn

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. asilvering (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity learn

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

it fails to demonstrate notability through independent, reliable sources, relying instead on press releases and affiliated content. Its promotional tone and lack of in-depth third-party coverage make it unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, Internet, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definately promo in tone, and most sources are not independant coverage. Maybe merge reliably sourced content to Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding the notability and reliance on affiliated sources. I've already removed several promotional or affiliated references and replaced them with some independent sources that I believe are more neutral and reliable.

Could you please guide me further on the kind of changes that would align this article with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Specifically:

Are there certain sources currently in the article that still do not meet the standard of independence and reliability?
Would adding coverage from particular types of third-party publications (e.g. newspapers, academic journals, industry reviews) help establish notability?
Are there tone-related areas you feel still read as promotional?

I'm eager to improve the article and would appreciate any specific suggestions you can offer to help bring it in line with Wikipedia's expectations. Mahendra2601 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahendra2601 Just a quick question, were you paid for creating this article? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paid to create this article. I came across a podcast of their CEO, talking about ai integration from school level which made me feel it deserved a proper page on Wikipedia. My intentions are purely to contribute meaningfully based on public interest and available verifiable information. If you have any suggestions or concerns about the content, I’m happy to discuss and improve it further. Mahendra2601 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. I G11'd this last time it was created and this version is not fundamentally better. Sourcing does not satisfy WP:ORGIND, essentially consisting of rehashed press releases. ~ A412 ^talk! 14:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article again and cited only reliable source only. Please have a look and let me know if i need to make any further change. correct it grammatically Mahendra2601 (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The writing has improved but the sourcing has not. I continue to not see any sources that pass the intellectual independence bar of WP:ORGIND, all being based on announcements provided directly by the company. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sourcing is really just trade publications and I'm not seeing much evidence anywhere that the article meets GNG through demonstrated importance in credible, independent sources. --TonySt (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. The sources are not really that good and notability is not clear. Page reads like a promo for the company. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2025 (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.