Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Plasma Resources


 * 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) sst✈  08:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Plasma Resources

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see many refs here but not one that seems to show notability. A ministerial letter opposing blood plasma for cash, various press releases but nothing substantive. Looks more like an advertising piece. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 06:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I hate to say it, but it seems like it got some press coverage:, , . It seems there's a controversy that makes it notable. I am all for killing spam company entries, but some of those refs were present in the article, and they are not easily confused with press release or a letter... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources provided by Piotr show independent coverage in reliable sources, so seems to satisfy WP:GNG. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - This company has been the subject of everyday news for the past three years, so there are a lot of news references available. To strengthen this article, I have added two references one from Maclean's magazine and one from the Canadian Medical Association Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyla.soleymani (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nice amount of source coverage among secondary references. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2016 (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.