Talk:Harvard Bioscience

This page was proposed for deletion by Kudpung (talk · contribs) on 31 January 2013 with the comment:
No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW.
It was contested by DGG (talk · contribs) on 2014-12-31 with the comment:
This is an important and well-known company, and we should be careful before deleting it

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

December 2013

Hi, I saw that you added a tag on this page for it doesn't have reliable resources. I can't understand the problem because the information on this page comes from 3rd party websites, such as google finance, yahoo finance, WSJ and the company's official website. Pls reconsider your tag and I will appreciate for your work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Huangw13 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 December 2013‎

@Huangw13: Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Any source which is under the "control" of the company itself is not considered "reliable" except for "bare facts" which "are not likely to be contested." This includes the company's own web site, its social-media pages, etc. It also includes press releases and slightly-rewritten press releases, no matter what publisher re-publishes them.

Blogs and other web sites or portions of web sites that are not backed by an entity which takes editorial responsibility for it are also not considered "reliable" sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

The tone of this article is a bit awkward. It also appears to be slanted towards the corporate financials rather than what a member of the public who is somewhat familiar with the company would think of when he hears the company's name. This is likely due to the article being based largely on primary sources closely associated with the company. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]