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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biodesix[edit]

Biodesix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article that reads like it was copied from a press release, but I cannot find the source. There is some coverage in genome web about the purchase of Bioyong, but I don't feel that rises to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH, because of that, this article does not merit inclusion under WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:PROMOTION violation by a WP:SPA, all coverage is WP:ROUTINE, so fails WP:GNG - GretLomborg (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- routine corporate blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2017 (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.