Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genourob


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Genourob

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of the sources prouve notability (2 are published by the founder of the company and the 3rd mentions one of the products as the tool used for the study). Fails WP:NORG. Domdeparis (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment from the page creator copied from talk page
 * Founder or not, the study has been done by an official orthopaedic surgeon. In addition, the study is present on a recognized medical website source, the ncbi which attests of this medical device for ACL analysis and diagnosis. No fake information is written here. There is no page on wikipedia dedicated to arthrometers, thus the reason I wrote it on this page.


 * Yesterday, I admit having wrote an article about Genourob being turned in a marketing way, but here I made sure that my writings remained written in a way qualified as informative and that they were supported by reliable scientific sources in order to respect wikipedia's policies.


 * Besides, after having made a research concerning what website were recognized by wikipedia to correctly reference my writings, I found out that the ncbi website is as a matter of fact a reliable source.


 * Further to your message, I added more sources to prove my point.
 * Reply Hi first of all please remember to sign your posts with ~ it automatically adds your signature. Secondly the article is about the company and the sources must show the notability of the company and be in-depth, the sources do not talk about the company but simply mention some of its products please read WP:INHERITORG. Please read WP:ORGCRITE and you will see that A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
 * None of your sources talk about the company. You are a long way from proving notability for this company. Domdeparis (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply Hi, thank you for your message. Further to your suggestion, I added more sources that I think are secondary. They show a prize won by genourob and an involvement with an company in the US. Is that enough for the Genourob to have a page?

Yves1907 Yves1907
 * Reply Please sign your comments using one of the 2 buttons with the 4 ~ s. I'm sorry but the second source is about another company that distributes one of the products and does not mention this company so this is far from being sufficient. The other one is more of the kind of thing that is needed but it is not sufficient in my opinion so I am not willing to withdraw the nomination. It would have been better to submit your draft for consideration before publishing this article. If what you want to do is write about arthrometers that would certainly be a very useful and interesting article but it must not be a promotional article for the product mentioned. From the way that you editing I presume that you have some link to the company it may be useful to read this WP:COI  Domdeparis (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be paid for spam. Does not appear to be notable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete medical device spam. "the study has been done by an official orthopaedic surgeon" doesn't mean anything when it is a primary source. - Brianhe (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2017 (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.