Deletion of Ceres Biofuels

Comment: per . Close paraphrasing is definitely a problem, but lack of in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources is a more serious issue. A GNews search finds lots of passing mentions. Coverage with any depth appears to come from this company's IPO. I can change my vote is someone can show better ''independent'' RS coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: the company seems to meet  pretty easily, with coverage in http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120208-711182.html the Wall Street Journal and http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-ceresinc-idUSTRE80O0XU20120125 Reuters.  If close paraphrasing is a problem, the best option is to cut the article down to a stub and start over
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Coverage by http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-22/ceres-rises-on-first-trading-day-for-biofuels-crop-company.html Bloomberg Businessweek or http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/25/news/la-california-biofuel-firm-ceres-plans-public-offering-20120125 The Los Angeles Times, although related to the IPO, seems to satisfy .  However, if kept, it needs to be totally rewritten
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)