Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HERT

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HERT

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

An WP:SPA editor has been creating a little WP:Walled garden of non-notable articles related to Anthony Zboralski, who is notable. But as is the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belua (company), HERT fails as a notable WP:CORP and doesn't merit a spin-off article. Any content worth preserving can be merged to Mr. Zboralski's bio article, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so convinced on Zboralski myself. But delete this per nom. w00w00 is also more than a little dubious - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely advertising and this hints at being part of a persistent PR campaign, in that it has all the classic signs of simply tossing some information and sources, but it's all thin since none of it actually means anything, and certainly nothing for substance. Once we become a PR webhost by allowing such trivial and unconvincing articles, we're not the same encyclopedia once conceived. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: Much of the article content is about related activities by this organisation's founder. To focus on HERT itself, my searches are finding little, possibly the best being a short piece from New Straits Times in 2006 – via HighBeam (subscription required) , but far from enough to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly advertising. Nothing to be salvaged with a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no sources to prove otherwise than a standard Wikipedia Spam. Writing to reference nothing is there! Light2021 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2016 (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.