Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AgileBio

: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. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

=[[:AgileBio]]=

:{{la|AgileBio}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AgileBio Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|AgileBio}})

This is an advert created by an apparent COI editor and tagged as such from the outset. It is almost exclusively based on press releases and the company's own or affiliated websites. Google shows little else - press releases covering updates and that's about it. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the sources in the article are indeed mostly primary. One that isn't, by Chuffart and Yvert, actually only mentions LabCollector (AgileBio's main product) in one brief sentence, so it hardly supports the salesy sentence it is attached to. Several of the trade paper refs seem to be based on PR notices as nom remarks. My main concern before deletion is that there is some notability of the product and company, with for instance a review experiment of the product, so it's plainly at least being considered seriously (as Chuffert and Yvert also indicate). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete: The bulk of this article is about LabCollector and its language is not encyclopedic. I do not object to using primary sources to speak about features of a piece of software. The problem, however, is that, frame contents aside, there is nothing else in the article. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:44, 8 September 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.