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 No consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. The second half of the nomination, namely the article titled Janet Wolfe, could perhaps be merged/redirected to form one more comprehensive article, as Ms. Wolfe is perhaps only notable for this particular venture. A merge proposal may be in order, keeping both for now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe Laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No notability asserted, likely author conflict of interest.

Also including the following page for the same reasons.

Janet Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paulbrock (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification added to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Pharmacology Paulbrock (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know of this company. I would say this was an assertion of notability: "Wolfe Laboratories was selected as one of the “Top 100 Woman-Led Business in MA” in 2007. Conducted by the Commonwealth Institute and Center for Woman’s Leadership at Babson College, the top 100 businesses were identified based on company revenue." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, insufficient attribution of notability to independent sources. Only routine or press release coverage on Google News Archive. And being in a "top 100" of anything is a pretty slim claim to notability, especially when a) at state level and b) qualified ("women led business"). The top firm in an industry in a state would be a much stronger claim. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither article sufficienty assesses notability. Contrary to Richard, being headed by a woman should nowadays not be the only reason to make a company notable. I will revise vote on the company if further information on notability is added (e.g. particular important products/methodologies offered, involvement in particularly notable or notorious cases etc). JFW | T@lk 06:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of RS coverage and sole assertion of notability is dubious and local, doesn't apppear to meet WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the article is notable and should be kept - it sounds like Wolfe has been in the news for some entrepreneurial achievements. There also appears to be relevant research going on as well. Other CRO's seem to have similar information on their pages. --powerten10 |

— powerten10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • What's a CRO? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the sources do tend to indicate the notability, though it is very hard to judge in this area, where they provide consulting, not tangible products.Probably only one of the two articles should be kept, but I'm not sure which. DGG (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wolfe Laboratories. Merge and redirect Janet Wolfe to Wolfe Laboratories as the person is only notable for her company. The company has received independent coverage, demonstrating notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - to meet notability requirements it is necessary to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. Of those I can check, there's a mention in a Top 100 list (not significant coverage). The refs under the References heading seem to be about the industry in general rather than specifically Wolfe. This leaves a press release, listed on Yahoo, but not independent, and a short article about moving premises, which I would argue is not significant coverage. How do the 'keeps' see the sources? Paulbrock (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the references in the article aren’t good enough, but we have to judge the subject, not the article as it is now, there are no time limits. I found http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/news/sections/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&newsId=20080401006163 and consider that it is sufficiently impressive as a demonstration of notability. It contains commentary about the company. I read “significant” as direct, not passing. It is not obvious that the news is non-independent, like a paid advertisement, so I give it the benefit of the doubt. Regarding “sources” (plural), I am happy to assume that if I can easily find one, then there’ll be more (like cockroaches). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's another press release though, which any company could upload to businesswire.com, not independent commentary about the company. See also [1] Paulbrock (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. What about the www.bizjournals.com articles [2], [3]. Are they also non-independent (paid for)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly much better. I feel that I am becoming too quick to shoot down 'keep' arguments though, so I will leave other contributors to determine the validity of the articles. Paulbrock (talk) 02:09, 3 May 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.