Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InBio.be

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. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InBio.be

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

Doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion, article's creator (or creators) has the username Inbiostaff (talk · contribs), suggesting WP:COI. Google hits don't turn up anything useful, and it fails the general notability guideline and WP:CORP (I think CORP is the most relevant guideline, but I may be wrong). Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Creator has (quite rightly, I suppose) been renamed User:Wilsonrty, just in case that was confusing anyone, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 02:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more an ad than an article. Not much coverage to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:19, 26 December 2009 (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.