Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precisionary Instruments


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Precisionary Instruments

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails NCORP. The only coverage I could find or that is cited in the article is trivial. For example, sources 4 and 5 merely establish that the company's products exist. Source 2 is trivial coverage about moving the company's headquarters. A Bloomberg company profile does not establish notability. The remaining sources do not fare any better. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, Biology,  and Massachusetts. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  03:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: There's a few sources that confirm that the product of the company exits. The article about company moving its headquarter is not trivial, the article discussed about the company. Existing references can be replaced or poorly sourced material can be removed. HxxxM07 (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: That something exists is neither evidence of notability nor meets any notability criteria. I agree that the source about the headquarters moving is trivial.  As far as HxxxM07's assertion that existing references can be replaced and poorly sourced material can be removed, that is so, but not only does that have no bearing one way or another upon notability issues, as the article creator, they should be more focused on improving this article than on suggesting that others bring it up to snuff themselves.  I concur with the nom that the subject fails NCORP, and that the sources presented do not satisfy the GNG.   Ravenswing      11:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will make necessary changes. Re-evaluate the article after I done with changes. If it fails to meet notability criteria then delete it as per Wikipedia policies. HxxxM07 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * AfD discussions are usually open for seven days and then the discussion will be evaluated by an admin to see if there is consensus to delete, keep, or do something else (such as merge or redirect). Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete After checking the sources, I believe this was/is also eligible for CSD WP:A7. Needless to say, a company moving is routine coverage. Darcyisvery cute (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with A7. "Credible claim of significance" is a much lower bar than notability, and the claim that the subject is "US based company that specialises in producing laboratory equipments such as vibratome and microtome" meets that bar. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:16, 11 January 2024 (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.