Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hecus

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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hecus[edit]

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

Contested prod, no indication of WP:Notability, unreferenced (WP:RS), posible conflict of interest (WP:COI) and advertising (WP:Advertising). One of the key authors is also persistently spamming external link sections of other articles with the company's url. Polyamorph (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* article was an "orphan" so it was linked to relevant wikipedia articles sites. no advertising intended - information only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrofev (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what makes this company notable? I can't see how it meets wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 08:35, 4 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no indication of notability. Is also highly promotional. Ravendrop (talk) 00:29, 7 February 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.