Deletion of Jamieson Laboratories

Comment: Notability under  may certainly be possible here, as it's by far the ''dominant'' product on the vitamins rack in every single drug store I've ever actually set foot in — but the nominator is correct that in ''this'' form, the article is minimally sourced and skews decidedly |advertorial in the substance. Adam9007's new sources on the talk page aren't helping all that much, either — half of them are corporate press releases, which are |primary sources rather than |reliable ones, and the ones that ''are'' good sources are covering it entirely in the context of a purchase deal that fell through. And even in a deep ProQuest search, I'm finding a lot of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things (such as its former CEO donating $750 to the mayoral campaign of Drew Dilkens, which who cares, or his new role as head of a medical marijuana company, which ), and very little substantive coverage about much of anything else besides the cancelled takeover. And while the takeover deal would be entirely worthy of note in a ''substantial'' and ''well-rounded'' article, it just makes this the corporate equivalent of a  if it's the ''only'' thing we can actually substance or source about the company. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do ''better'' than this, but this as currently written and sourced is not enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:ADVERT||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: this is a case of a company that ''could'' be notable, but review of the available sources proves otherwise. Not other reason for the article to exist to serve as a , which Wikipedia is not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)