Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/454 Life Sciences


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran ( t  •  c ) 07:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

454 Life Sciences

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable subsidiary of a notable company (Hoffmann-La Roche). Many references, but they are mostly scientific journals about the specific kind of DNA work done by the subsidiary (that is done by other companies), they are not references about not the subsidiary itself. Insufficient substantiation under Notability (organizations and companies) or Notability to justify a stand-alone article. GrapedApe (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is established since "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (WP:CORP), as evidenced in the references section of the article (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, scientific journals). The news coverage is from when the company was still independent, not a subsidiary. Now, as a Roche subsidiary, the coverage is understandably less. But: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." (WP:NTEMP)--Biologos (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you be opposed to incorporating this material into the Hoffmann-La Roche article?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the best solution, I think. Just like it is better to keep the information about all the breweries that are now Anheuser-Busch InBev (Beck's, Anheuser-Busch, Stella Artois, etc.) in the respective articles.--Biologos (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Biologos. Deserves its own article, linked from the H-LR article.  – SJ +  02:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't have much to add to Biologos' cogent arguments for keeping this article. This was, and as a mostly independent subsidiary, still is a well-known company in the field of genomics and genetics. The article is mildly promotional and could be improved, but this is a surmountable problem. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggest this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but limit to the small amount of encyclopedic  content. Almost everything here is about genome sequencing in general, qualified by saying it uses their tradmarked machines.   DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Noteworthy with significant secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.