Deletion of BioReference Laboratories

Comment: for now but could be persuaded to go to .  The references are not nearly what is needed to demonstrate that the company meets  but the fact that Reuters saw fit to write http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?rpc=66&symbol=BRLI.O gives me hope that such references could be found.  If it turns out that this content was provided by the company then I'll change to DELETE.  Likewise, if it turns out that Reuters has this level of depth on all NASDAQ stocks I will change to DELETE on the grounds that the coverage is "routine."  Should quality references be added to the page, I could be persuaded to move to "weak keep" or even "keep."  Should this deleted later and quality references found that clearly demonstrate notability, I have no objections to un-deletion provided the notability-demonstrating references are added to the page or talk page immediately after restoration.  By the way, I marked two of the "longer" references as press releases
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:SOFTDELETE||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: I believe the page needs to be expanded and more references needs to be searched. As it is a | Listed company, there are higher chances that more reliable and independent references can be found
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTED)