Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HME, Incorporated

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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HME, Incorporated[edit]

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

Non-notable company; could have been speedied, IMHO. Orange Mike | Talk 08:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but is there any reason you removed my perfectly good PROD? Anyway here was my rationale:"Very Promotional, written by a person with a COI, and no third party reliable sources to show notability. (Ordinarily would have tagged as G11 but an admin said that this should not be speedied)" (See this diff by Daniel Case). --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found these books within a minute or so and I'm sure anyone taking just a little more time would find plenty more sources here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the two books gives a brief few paragraphs out of the entire book. the second gives even less: one paragraph out of the entire book. Not exactly substantial coverage. As for "I'm sure anyone taking just a little more time would find plenty more sources", we cannot keep an article on the grounds that someone thinks there are likely to be sources but hasn't actually found them. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking on "view all" in those Google Books links to see how much coverage there is in the "entire books" rather than on just the particular pages linked. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, thank you Phil Bridger for correcting me. These books do indeed contain more about HME than I realised. They are still fairly brief mentions scattered through the books, and I think they are borderline for establishing notability, but probably just enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2010 (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.