Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADInstruments
- 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- ADInstruments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are routine coverage or directory listings. Deleted by PROD in 2006. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Technology, and New Zealand. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: This one's borderline but I'm leaning Keep. This source from the University of North Carolina at Pembroke discusses the use of ADInstruments products in their biology coursework, and this article from the Otago Daily Times is over the line for significant coverage. It's not ideal, but it is sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep but stubify: The Otago Daily Times article the last user found (which was already cited in the article) is fine, and the new source they found is fine if it can be worked into the existing article. But the article's tone is very WP:PROMO and backed up by largely fluff sources. The whole thing should be trimmed down to a stub until more solid sources can be found, to take care of the advertisement-like content. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2025 (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.