Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HCentive

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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HCentive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article of dubious notability -- started by declared paid editor--see talk p. The references areeither PR or mentions or general information DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actually wasn't over the top promotional until they got to that awards and recognitions section. That sank the ship. Up to then I woulda let it fly for disclosing the COI. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think it is borderline because not all of the sources talk in depth about the company, but some do have more than a mere mention, some have several paragraphs. The accumulation suggests that there is some awareness of this company which nudges enough into notability for us to give it the benefit of the doubt. SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I opened half of the refs and they aren't sufficient for this to be notable. Admittedly I didn't open all of the refs but those I saw are company blurb that a paid editor adds... Szzuk (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From what I can tell these sources meet WP:NCORP. Good to have on Wiki. Mememento (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NCORP. Cleanup is needed as the article is written in a promotional tone. Masum Reza^📞 03:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Agreed...meets WP:NCORP but cleanup is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2019 (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.