Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamieson 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamieson Laboratories

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable company that fails to cite almost any reliable sources to back up its claim to notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found several sources, which I put on the talk page. I think they may be enough for notability. Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

leaning Delete - I had a look, but everything I could find was passing mentions and corporate ownership deals - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the listed links were all simply PR and republished, talking about what the company only wants to mention about itself, not what actually matters, and the best part that came close was simply about the potential $1 billion sale, but it never actually happened therefore there's nothing else to say. Once we become a PR webhost for all advertising matters, this place is damned and troubled severely. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability under
WP:BLP1E if it's the only thing we can actually substance or source about the company. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this as currently written and sourced is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- this is a case of a company that could be notable, but review of the available sources proves otherwise. Not other reason for the article to exist to serve as a
WP:PROMO, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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.