Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AgriScience Labs

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. czar 02:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

AgriScience Labs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

AgriScience Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a decent article, so it pains me when nominating. My main reason for doing so is that is clearly fails NCORP and more importantly, GNG. Starting with the sources present in the article: most are not independent, and when they are they're actually about the company's testing methodology and do not constitute coverage contributing towards notability. Not that they're very reliable either (some Cannabis mags and a podcast). I searched in print and online media and could not find a single good quality source that was exclusively about the lab. Some staff movements, press releases or stories about products they've tested once again. So I can definitely say the company fails notability guidelines at this time, regardless of its status as "oldest licensed" Cannabis testing lab in the state; this just means someone filed paperwork before others; and again it would still need to fulfill GNG. PK650 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The odd press-release, own sites. I would have thought there would be more in the first 10 ref's.scope_creep^Talk 21:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a single secondary source. Seems to be just a complete advertising skit. scope_creep^Talk 21:09, 17 December 2019 (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.