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. Courcelles 23:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont BioSolutions[edit]

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

Serious WP:NPOV problems. Article was CSD'd one week ago per WP:CSD#A7, now it's been recreated, and is a possible WP:CSD#G11 candidate. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with you, I can't find any serious sources with a quick internet browse. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been additionally edited to include several references to primary source publications and 3rd party resources. Opinions and subjective descriptors have also been eliminated so that the remaining content is all statements of fact. This article also uses similar wording and structure as other similar size companies such as [Pacific BioSciences]. JohnMaveety (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still unclear how the article meets the criteria of WP:ORG. Existance is not enough to justify a wikipedia article. You need to verify how the article meets the notability criteria put forward in WP:ORG, and to do so using reliable sources. Primary sources are a big no-no. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is clear that there has now been a strong effort to source the article, and that even with that effort the primary sources are press releases, which do not establish notability. In terms of notability criteria I see nothing. I do see that the organization exists, and that it may in the future be notable by Wikipedia standards. But at this point it does not appear to have reached the necessary level as established in reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2011 (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) 01:13, 23 June 2011 (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.