Deletion of Biocom (2nd nomination)

Comment: The article doesn't pass , therefore if doesn't pass E.  Before the promotion was removed, it violated  via .  With the promo removed it's left as a simple directory entry, violating  via DIRECTORY.  Either way it's just not notable and no arguing about GNG can get around that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTE||WP:PROMO||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: The company has received coverage in significant and reliable third-party news sources.  Notability requires that the subject has received attention from third party sources, so the subject satisfies |the general guidelines for notability.  I took a minute to remove some of the promotional tone from the article--I think it no longer reads like an advertisement or simple directory
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per DGG and Smallbones both: local trade organizations that are featured in local trade publications and other local sources are not typically accepted as reliable sources for the purpose of notability on the English Wikipedia, because the trade pubs will print virtually anything that they are told to print, making them failing in both independence and editorial oversight that we typically expect from our secondary sources. Regular local journalism is slightly better, but they do tend to be less stringent on the publication of information from local groups than we prefer for organizations. The sources that do not fall into this category also seem to be typical PR churn, which would be excluded from counting towards notability by .{{pb}}With those consideration, this does not pass the general guideline in . As Smallbones also points out, it is impossible to be notable, even if there were sources, if the article does not pass OT. The notability guideline is abundantly clear on this: to be included a subject must pass either the general guideline or a subject guideline '''and''' not be excluded by the policy of OT. Failing both the general guideline and NOT as either promotion or a directory entry makes this a clear delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: per DGG, a local trade organization does not merit an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman has persuaded me with his rebuttals to this being somehow above local notability. Smallbones's summary about  is icing on the cake
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  and because this squeaks by  and . Of note is that the article was entirely rewritten on 16:32, 1 August 2017‎ (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biocom&diff=793417600&oldid=792138579 diff). As such, commentary for deletion relative to the state of the article prior to this time are in reference to the previous version of the article, rather than its present state
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:AUD)

Comment: Promotional article. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)