Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GPnotebook
states "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is '''notable''' if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable, and independent of the subject." the British Medical Journal is as reliable and as independent as they come and the http://careerfocus.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/324/7337/S73.pdf article (page s77) I placed on the articles discussion page has a history and overiew of the site. However I'm rather new to wiki lawyering so I don't know what the per Deiz dictum is however I've been told that on AfD's there is no assumption of precedence but every article must be judged on its own merits. By my reading of the  it is notable enough for inclusion, and the are enough available attributable sources to support the article as it stands. That it is a stub now is no reason to delete as it can be expanded, with enough sources at present to at least a section on its founders, history and use of technology
— User:KTo288, 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ORG (Wikipedia:Notability)