Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Biolabs

Creative Biolabs

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

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

This article was seemingly created and subsequently updated by employees of the company. I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources that would support the requirements of WP:CORP being met. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This company exists, but I can't find any discussion of it in secondary sources. Fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Very nearly notable, but I can only find PR items [1]. Many hits in Gscholar, but they're all primary/from the company or passing mentions (we used the company's product in thsi experiment). Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm affiliated with Creative Biolabs, and I've disclosed my affiliation on Talk Page and understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest (COI) and notability guidelines.

I’ve made suggestions on the Talk page, as recommended for COI editors. For example, I requested adding the company logo through proper channels, and another editor kindly assisted with formatting the file.

The article has been on Wikipedia for quite some time, and several parts of the content are now outdated or no longer accurate. Recently, we took the time to better understand Wikipedia's policies and recognize how sensitive COI editing can be. That's why we plan to improve the article gradually through the Talk page—updating information and ensuring that all content remains neutral and well-sourced.

We do hope the WP:CORP of the subject can be reassessed. If you're interested, please take a look at the Talk Page, where we've prepared new materials for review. We welcome your suggestions on whether the proposed references meet Wikipedia's standards and how the article can be improved accordingly.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

--Sherwinbrown1 (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really suggest you read WP:Notability in its entirety, especially the parts about what significant coverage in independent sources means. You list a bunch of sources, but they don't confer notability.

Publishing in scientific journals does not confer notability. If it did, almost every academic researcher would have a Wikipedia page.

All the other sources you list are either press releases from Creative Labs (which doesn't confer notability, because anyone can pay a few bucks to send out a press release).

What you would need is a few articles written by independent journalists that discuss Creative Biolabs as the main subject of the article. A passing mention doesn't count; Creative Biolabs needs to be the subject of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]