- 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 AnaSpec but delete HiLyte Flour. SoWhy 11:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AnaSpec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nothing here to support notability of this pharmaceutical supply company —G716 <T·C> 05:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because this is a product of AnaSpec - also nothing to deonstrate notability.:
—G716 <T·C> 05:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 05:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 05:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Neither the company nor the product have received significant coverage in any reliable sources, which is what is required by WP:CORP, the notability guideline that is relevant to both. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note that the company is covered substantially and not trivially or incidentally in multiple independent sources that are cited in the article's References section. I don't know about you, but in my book that passes WP:CORP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep anaSpec fairly widely known specialist company with two adequate references.DGG (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete AnaSpec. I could find absolutely no significant real news coverage about this subject anywhere, anytime, anyhow that anyway describes this company/entity as anything remotely related to the "fairly widely known specialist company" described above. What are the independent, objective, third-party "adequate references" that help this article meet the most basic notability requirements? Flowanda | Talk 07:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Although the current article doesn't have much useful content, an article on this subject is probably warranted. Let's leave it and hope that someone comes in and builds this. --Mblumber (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AnaSpec as it seems to be a notable enough company and, as Mblumber wrote, an article is surely warranted, there's just not enough information present at this time for the article to seem complete. I will add an expansion tag. The article also has two highly credible references, so I am inclined to believe that the subject is notable enough. But Delete HiLyte Fluor as it does not seem to be a notable enough product on its own to warrant its own article. Move any key information to the AnaSpec article, if appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2008 (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.