Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosurv Concept Exchange

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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infosurv Concept Exchange

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of User talk:71.56.36.153. On the merits, I have no comment. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment, from the article's talk page, reads thus:

This article was written by owner of said company and is essentially link spam and an advertising piece, unless it can ever be rewritten as NPOV. I'm not even sure it's notable enough otherwise. The deletion discussion for their other page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infosurv ended this way too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.36.153 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sales brochure for a business to business service of some kind; its actual operation is unsurprisingly not explained, only how it can help you make money fast on the Internet. "References" are to unpublished or self-published sources, and to patent applications and the like. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure marketing with zero encyclopedic value. No third-party references to establish notability, and a Google search turned up nothing promising. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Promotional article. The usable sources are from the organisation itself.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2011 (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.