Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damco 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damco Solutions

[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)

This IT services company fails to satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP, since I cannot locate any substantial coverage to fulfill notability standards. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, India, Haryana, United States of America, and New Jersey. Raj Shri21 (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent significant coverage, a PR induced article. - The9Man ^Talk 06:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I can find meets WP:ORGCRIT. Note that the Forbes references (at least the links to the ones working) fall under WP:FORBESCON. The rest is routine coverage, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the rationale of the nominator strangely similar to some other suspicious nominations and is too generic, LLM-created. The page has the problems with some of the sources not notable, but I see Insurance Journal, Computer Weekly and several other to be notable and covering the subject in enough depth.--Nuerkran (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those appear to be broken links, and don't show up at archive.org. Can you supply direct links to the material you're seeing there? You're noting "several others", but the rest appear to be paid placement and press material. Which others do you feel are significant? Sam Kuru (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same junk sources used at the redirect hijack here, and at the deleted spam page here. Some clear SEO blackhat sites removed, including some blatant promotional language. The rest is just press releases and broken links. Looking around, I could not locate anything other than more PR and a ton of seedy paid placement in the usual sites. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:14, 6 July 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.