Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DotLab

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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DotLab

[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)

Apart from a bunch of PR stuff, typical short-coverage about a newly founded startup.Does not pass subject notability guidelines. ∯WBG^converse 03:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with being none notable appears to be written by a sock of a paid editing firm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I can find are mainly PR-type ones, not independent reliable sources. Doesn't seem to meet corporate notability guidelines. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete yes horrible. Fails NCORP by a long way. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PR sources, can't find anything to establish notability per WP:NCORP. (Above second nom to keep things separate). Basie (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sock work based on PR sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I am also nominating the following related pages:

The reasons are:

created by the same obvious UPE, and is also horrible example of PR writing (the quotes! gah). I did my best to clean it up and got this far but than ran out of good refs. The refs are a bunch of blogs and SPS of various sorts. While she has won some awards (MIT 30 under 35 in 2016) there is almost no high quality coverage of her.

nothing about the person nor the company in fierce biotech

nothing about her in Xconomy nor about the company

nothing in main forbes site (where Matthew Herper writes)

NYT only the marriage announcement already cited

nothing in SF Chronicle

This is really Theranos-ish, which I hope this does not turn out to be. the lack of coverage in the biotech industry and high quality sources is disturbing, however.

But this is WP:TOOSOON for now.

Pinging the nominator and those who have already !voted - User:Winged Blades of Godric, User:Doc James, User:PohranicniStraze. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a marriage announcement is a fairly week source. Support deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per doc:)Support deletion.∯WBG^converse 09:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established. Not ready at all. This was one of my first accepts back in the day. I have learned from this. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2018 (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.