Deletion of Quick Heal

Comment: Articles from The Economic Times http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/quick-heal-acquires-junco-technologies-launches-cyber-security-arm/articleshow/52865717.cms The Economic Times/Press Trust of India, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/quickheal-technologies-to-list-shares-on-february-18/articleshow/51012525.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/quick-heal-technologies-files-case-against-manohar-malani-for-forgery/articleshow/51124310.cms Business Standard, http://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/ipo-review-quick-heal-technologies-116020800028_1.html http://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/quick-heal-technologies-surges-on-heavy-volumes-116041800347_1.html The Indian Express, http://indianexpress.com/article/education/for-auto-and-it-sectors-sppu-offers-two-new-mtech-programmes-4409208/ The Hindu, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/quick-heal-files-fir-against-manohar-malani-for-forgery/article8276395.ece NDTV/Press Trust of India, http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/quick-heal-technologies-fixes-price-band-for-ipo-on-monday-797741,   would seem to be enough to meet . The article needs work, but the subject is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: There are significant coverage about the http://searchindiannews.in/search.html?i=1#gsc.q=Quick%20Heal%20&gsc.sort= Quick Heal in multiple |independent sources which is sufficient to meet the |notability criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS||WP:N)

Comment: A notable company producing antivirus software. Sources are there. Passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP)

Comment: Modifying my comment''). As  excessive spam articles come from India, even notable articles from India are being seen as corporate spam. This company is covered in many reliable sources, which are third party and independent. The coverage is not for few days but for years, in not one source but in multiple sources.  should be avoided. Editors should try to find some better AFD article as I did here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopma.in. Wasting time to delete a notable article as it is from India is  pointless
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:GEOBIAS)

Comment: The references provided above meet  criteria and therefore the topic is notable and meets . The objection is that this article is SPAM, not that the topic isn't notable enough to merit its own article. There's a worrying trend on AfD to nominate articles whose topics meet notability criteria but whose content is SPAMmy. Deletion is not an appropriate step for these articles - it is a simple matter to delete the SPAMmy content and tag the article for attention
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CORP)