Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIRE Life Sciences

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIRE Life Sciences

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

Quite apart from the fact that the article reads like an advertisement, I cannot find any substantial news sources covering this company. I do not think that it currently meets notability guidelines. Shritwod (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources presented fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and do not give any sign that greater significance exists. The awards won appear to be PR or trivial. I found no better sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the SIRE Life Sciences page is up for deletion due to promotional content and no substantial news sources. The update on this article on 9/11/16 11:00 GMT +1 might have resolved the previous complaints. If this article is still unfit for Wikipedia, what are changes that can be implemented to improve this article without removing it. With the google search "sire life sciences -site:https://sire-search.com" many reliable news sources appear, which can be used to update the article to the wikipedia standarts. Thanks in advance.

Best regards 195.191.1.50 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comments came after that update, and I already searched for sources. Neither version contains sufficient sources, no new sources of sufficient depth were found, and this article still appears to be spam. If you have a conflict of interest (such as working for the company), you can propose changes on the article's talk page. In order for this to be kept, much, much better sources need to be found. Grayfell (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recruitment firm. The award documented in the article (placing in a top 100 self-nomination SME award from the Netherlands' Chambers of Commerce) is not notable and my searches are finding nothing better than the routine listings expected of such a business. No evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep -Thanks for the responds, upon researching the subject I found 3 articles in Het Financieele Dagblad (biggest financial newspaper in the Netherlands), the page shows 5 but 2 seem to be similar articles, on https://fd.nl/search?q=sire+life+sciences&sort.value=publicationDate&period=all&customPeriod.start=1985-01-01&customPeriod.end=2016-11-10 . The article could be expanded by using those sources. I also found a newsroom on http://sirelifesciences.maussen.com/nl but it doesn't seem to be updated since november 2015. biotechnews.eu also has multiple articles http://www.biotechnews.eu/fileadmin/pdf/2015-najaar/biotech_151110.pdf . The last article states that SIRE Life Sciences is the market leader in life science recruitment in the benelux. I shall expand the article including the prior sources, also I will continue to look for reliable sources.

195.191.1.50 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep (if edited) The articles listed above are reliable and notable sources according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) 85.144.252.9 (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links are particularly useful. Do you have a conflict of interest with the company? Grayfell (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Read like an advertisement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 17:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writen from a neutral, objective viewpoint 195.191.1.50 (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as completely damned as an advertisement before the words even start with the obvious company "TM" listed, and then it never gets better considering it literally lists what the company services are about, and the fact this was deleted only 5 ago is enough, once again worse when the account was an advertising-only one. Delete by all means and any republished PR which has been listed is only emphasizing the concerns. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this deletion of a draft article from last year. Is this what you are referring to, or was there another version of the article? Thanks. Shritwod (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2016 (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.