Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fisher Wallace Laboratories


 * 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) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Fisher Wallace Laboratories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article violates WP:NPOV, as it is entirely slanted negatively. The company is barely notable, if notable at all, so the article reads as a hit piece rather than something of permanent, historical value. As for the sources, the WSJ piece is a passing mention, as is the Medscape, Scientific American, and MDDI piece. Others are from publishers that are, at best, tenuously WP:RS. Equinative (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree that the article is entirely negative although parts are. It certainly needs improvement but deletion should be based on notability.  I think the company may be just notable.  Nom said the WSJ article was just a passing mention, but there were three paragraphs on the company and its product.  I also found this  which is a reliable source, and this  which appears reliable.  There are lots of other hits so there may be more coverage out there.  There are also video on national news (FOX and others) but I haven't tracked them down so they may or may not be valid sources.  Overall, the article should be tagged for improvement and kept.  I also notice that recently, one long time editor already pruned unreliable sources.  Furthermore, the nominator has a declared COI and is employed by the subject. MB (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:GNG, WP:NPOV - Sufficient reliable sources. As far as possible the article represents the subject fairly and proportionately. I see no reason to delete. -- Taketa (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep mainly per MB's reasoning and observations. Article has recently moved from being dominated by favorable sources to critical sources, so it might be better wp:balanced, but not deleted given subject's reaching threshold notability. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 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.