Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navigenics

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. John254 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navigenics

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. This contains at least some indicia of notability, and the service offered by the company is slightly unusual at present. I rewrote the lead sentence to describe their chief product less abstractly and evasively. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are secondary sources. They are in the article. What is needs is a lot more in line citation for the above stuff, even if it comes from a primary source, to clarify where it came from. Based on the references, additional links should be easy to find as they mention coverage in other news sources. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep another article which is basically spam (the difference is the slightly reliable references section. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a medical doctor working in human genetics research, I think that a wiki article about this company is important for the general public, including info about both its proposed innovation and the controversy about it. Daforerog (talk) 20:44, 29 August 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.