Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioReference Laboratories

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. Consensus is that we consider this a soft delete not subject to speedy deletion if and when the article is re-created with sufficiently claims to notability above and beyond what we have now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BioReference Laboratories

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

Non-notable. Most news related items are press releases or non-notable facts of company's existence. Sole possible claim to notability is inclusion on Forbes list, but per WP:CORPDEPTH. "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak neutral for now but could be persuaded to go to WP:SOFTDELETE. The references are not nearly what is needed to demonstrate that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH but the fact that Reuters saw fit to write http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?rpc=66&symbol=BRLI.O gives me hope that such references could be found. If it turns out that this content was provided by the company then I'll change to DELETE. Likewise, if it turns out that Reuters has this level of depth on all NASDAQ stocks I will change to DELETE on the grounds that the coverage is "routine." Should quality references be added to the page, I could be persuaded to move to "weak keep" or even "keep." Should this deleted later and quality references found that clearly demonstrate notability, I have no objections to un-deletion provided the notability-demonstrating references are added to the page or talk page immediately after restoration. By the way, I marked two of the "longer" references as press releases. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the page needs to be expanded and more references needs to be searched. As it is a Listed company, there are higher chances that more reliable and independent references can be found. Mr RD 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFTDELETE as almost all of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage as a result of NASDAQ listing. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2014 (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.