Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyBioSource

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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyBioSource

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

Alleged to be G11, but may be salvageable. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nom - this is probably salvageable. It seems to be covered in two peer reviewed journal articles per references of this article already. I will see if I can find more. Hopefully these are peer reviewed journals - it appears that they are. So far, nice looking out to the nom ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this appears to be a good and reputable company, whose products appear in many peer-reviewed papers. In other departments, the company is reported to offer scholarships for high school students in STEM. For a company that was founded in 2007, it seems to be making a rather definite name for itself in its field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over 2200 hits on Google Scholar. That just proves that this article clearly meets WP:GNG. The article itself is slightly promotional, but that can be easily fixed. Omni Flames (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does it prove that? Its usual to state from were one purchased key reagents. As there are many tens of thousands of biological articles a year, a few hundred a year that use something from this company is not necessarily significant. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 17 July 2016 (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.