Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNA Tribes

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Tribes[edit]

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

After working on this article to remove copyvio, sources that don't back the claims, puffery, and looking at the talk page and the scant mention of this company in the sources added to make it notable (which only mention it as one among others), and doing a search, I've come to the conclusion that this company doesn't meet our criteria at WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per The New York Times and GScholar.-- Dewritech (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can find no significant coverage about the company. The NY Times article is a passing mention. A pointer to Google Scholar search results are not useful as search results themselves tell us nothing without looking at the sources. This paper seems to look at them in a little more depth but is only cited once. Not exactly a resounding endoresement of notice being taken. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many of these personal DNA companies. There is nothing particularly notable about this one. Google News Archive search finds only passing mentions. In any case, those extensive tables in the article need to go. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2012 (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.