Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Metagenics, Inc.

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No consensus for deletion at this time but probably should not be mainspaced without significant improvement. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Metagenics, Inc.

 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Recently deleted and recreated. My CSD G4 tag was declined because a MfD nomination did not exist (I was not aware and am surprised as it appears suboptimal; reposting the page is less trouble than nominating it). Please also see a previous related discussion at WT:MED. Thanks — Paleo Neonate  – 03:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete again. questionable and spam. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I will work tomorrow to revise the tone of this article. Thanks for your understanding.Sydniev51 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2017 (PST)

I made some small edits. I feel that the information given is much more basic; please advise. I'd like to comply with Wikipedia guidelines but am unsure of what further edits I should be making. Thank you. Sydniev51 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've updated the thread at WT:MED for more input. We have various criteria for inclusion, the previous deletion was because it was an advertizement.  Notability is another, if that can be demonstrated, it would already be a good step.  Articles on notable subjects can still be deleted if they are promotional, of course.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: pending outcome of discussion at WT:MED

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (don't accept for mainspace). Makes no claims of notability and the cited refs are routine profiles or about associated topics rather than in-depth independent on the company itself. DMacks (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, didn't realize this hadn't had an XFD before (misread logs). It doesn't look hopelessly promotional, so I don't object to keeping it in draft-space per usual active work-in-progress (noting COI policy is being followed, which gives me no prejudice against keeping but no willingness for leniency either). DMacks (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes that's also why my G4 CSD was declined (the previous deletion was only via CSD G11). — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * keep No need to delete this draft, looks like the org has been around for years and can be improved with better sourcing.Egaoblai (talk) 07:58, 2 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.