Deletion of Biofortified

Comment: Let's run down the list of those new sources added which are ''not'' sourced from this outfit's own website, written by their own staffers or consisting of Twitter feeds and the like.  The Forbes article does not mention Biofortified at all.  The COSMOS article mentions Biofortified in passing, but does not discuss it in the "significant detail" the GNG requires; furthermore, it is explicitly established that quotes from a member of an organization do not serve to establish that organization's notability.  The seedmagazine.com article does not mention Biofortified at all.  The truthabouttrade.org blog, even were it a reliable source (which it is not), mentions Biofortified in passing, in a single sentence.  The AgBioWorld.com piece reads like a press release, and I await the evidence that the website constitutes a |reliable source. I further await Kjhvm's link to any such article in the Post-Dispatch.Perhaps the Keep proponents are unclear about the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:V.  Articles must discuss the '''subject''' in significant detail, not people or entities associated with it, or causes championed by it.  They must be mentioned in multiple, reliable, independent sources ... not Facebook pages, not random blogs and not in any source produced by the subject or employees of the subject.  So far, I've yet to see a single qualifying source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IRS)