Talk:Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology

This is the marginal case among the supplier articles. Against Project:Vendor notability: criterion 1 met (registry identity), criterion 2 met (over two years), criterion 3 met (independent reports exist), criterion 4 not met (no independent coverage), criterion 5 arguably met (documentation practice is describable).

That is three or four of five, so it passes. But the article that results is largely "this organisation is much like the others", and I am not sure that is worth a page. — — NotabilityNoa (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"Much like the others" is genuinely useful information to a reader comparing twenty suppliers, and it is information they cannot get anywhere else — every supplier's own material claims to be distinctive. An article that neutrally establishes ordinariness has done something. — — ScopeSeverin (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

A middle option: merge the marginal entries into a single comparative article and keep standalone pages for the ones with distinguishing features. That would serve the comparing reader better than twenty near-identical pages. — — MergeMorwenna (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I would resist that. A merged article invites exactly the ranking behaviour we try to avoid, and it would mean one page's neutrality dispute affecting twenty organisations at once. Separate pages keep the disputes separable. — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Leaving this open rather than closing it. The question recurs for four or five of the supplier articles and is better settled once, on the guideline's own talk page, than repeatedly here. — — DeletionDeb (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Placing the standing note at the top of every supplier talk page so it does not have to be re-argued. Under Project:Vendor notability a supplier article may not contain: a price, an offer, a discount, a price list, any contact detail, or a shipping-outcome claim not attributed to a source.

Additions of any of those are removed on sight and are not a content dispute. — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, and worth adding the reason rather than only the rule: each of those items turns a reference entry into a sales listing, and the moment one article carries them every other organisation has a grievance. — — CoI_Corin (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. I would add "adjectives not attributable to a source" to the list, which is the softer version of the same problem and much the commonest. — — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Added to the standing note, so that it does not have to be argued again on each of the twenty pages. ✓ Resolved — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)