Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humx electronics

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humx electronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Prod was removed. Fails

• Delete - Very little coverage to be found about this, seems to fail
  COI, given their use of the first person in this edit. Quasihuman | Talk 19:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A 3 year old company with no refs. Didn't look for any refs to be fair, but I doubt there are any. Szzuk (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Neutral Gleanable stuff from their web site indicates that they could probably meet notability.North8000 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC) notability. North8000 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of third-party sources. I didn't see any third-party sources aside from the Humx website on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we should have an article on everything. I say we should keep it just because we need articles on every company, don't we? Oh, we don't? Sorry -- delete Jsharpminor (talk) 23:04, 10 August 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.