Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology Fortified, Inc.


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Biology Fortified, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reads like an advertisement, lacks verifiable secondary sources, notability questionable. Semitransgenic talk. 10:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 11:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 11:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as I simply found nothing and I PRODed this as shown here. Draft and userfy if needed I suppose. Notifying past taggers, and .  SwisterTwister   talk  19:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. They look interesting, and it might conceivably be possible to write an article, but this is advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable by the standard of WP:ORG. The external links are primary sources and press releases. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree that it fails the in depth coverage standard of WP:ORG. However, I ended up reading the article at SourceWatch, which was more balanced. The couple of in depth articles by GM-Watch don't amount to substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and have their own bias.  The Forbes was just a mention in passing, and the Cato Institute video wasn't independent. The "Biology Fortified’s GMO Corn Experiment" caught the eye of someone at Popular Science but the article is slim at best. I am not sure what to do with the numerous mentions at Jon Entine's Genetic Literacy Project, whose bias is also obvious. --Bejnar (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2015 (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.