Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InBios

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InBios

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

InBios Does not meet WP:CORP. It's been flagged for not meeting WP:GNG since 2014. I looked on google scholar here and could find a few independent reliable sources discussing accuracy of some of their produced tests, but nothing about the organisation itself.

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"InBios International, Inc"			✘ No
"InBios Receives EUA from FDA for its Smart Detect SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR Kit."		Dependent significant coverage as it is a press release	✘ No
"InBios Receives FDA EUA FOR COVID-19 Antibody Test."		Press release	✘ No
"InBios Receives FDA EUA for Second COVID-19 Antibody Test."		Press release	✘ No
"DoD Awards $12.67M Contract to InBios"		Press release	✘ No
"InBios Receives FDA EUA for Zika ELISA."		Press release	✘ No
"InBios Granted FDA Market Authorization."		Press release	✘ No
"InBios Releases First FDA Cleared Dengue Fever Test in the US"		Press release	✘ No
"FDA permits marketing of first test to help diagnose dengue fever"		Press release	✘ No
"Design considerations for immunodiagnostics"	InBios author was on the publication		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Current references are press releases written by the company, and a DOD and an FDA mention that essentially note the company's existence. There's one other report here which at least has the virtue of being independent of the InBios PR department, but does not cover the company so much as the CEO's views on pandemic management. Too little there to meet GNG. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2022 (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.