Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScienCell Research 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 delete. clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

ScienCell Research Laboratories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has primarily been written by individuals who appear to work for the company the article is about. 90% of the article is just a list of products they manufacture and countries in which they distribute. Additionally nothing in the article indicates notability. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * see where  identifies themselves as working for the company.
 * see where  claims to be the owner of the website.
 * see where an anonymous editor removed a "we" statement that was added by . Yet another example of WP:PROMOTION.
 * These indicate not only WP:COI but also a propensity towards WP:PROMO. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so I've declared my COI on my user page and the ScienCell page (I think) and am still working on the general page in terms of referencing notability and adding a blurb about the company's history. At this point though, I'm just afraid to do anything. I'd at least like to address the concern about the page being a products list. Am I allowed to delete the bulleted list of cell types and research areas to replace it with something much more general while it's being reviewed? Sorry, and thanks! Smallasian (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't believe that anybody is going to raise any concerns if you delete content, provided that it doesn't skew the meaning of the remaining text. Removing the list of cell types and the very boring list of locations could only improve the article. That is, of course, not the same as making it notable. I will reserve my view on that issue for a while.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been Numerous edits on the page and added references for notibility, please review and reply with what it lacks, thanks and regards. - thirsty2k —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not only is this advertorial, I frankly see no signs there can be any needed improvements for guaranteed acceptance. SwisterTwister   talk  22:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The problem in this particular case is notability. I see some claims of significance, but none of notability. We are very clear that companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. In this case, it would require reliable independent souces which talk about the company in detail. The depth of sources required is not satisfied here. I also see that some of the sources don't satisfy WP:AUD. This article would have been rejected at AFC as well, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a replica of a corporate website; there's insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 7 August 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.