Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotica Technology Ltd.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biotica Technology Ltd.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources in article are either

WP:NORG requires that the organisation have at least two independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - will hunt for some more secondary sources and add them in. This is one of my first attempts at a full new page, so pretty new at this. Learning all the time :-) Pdxmag (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of attempts at the secondary sources you suggest discussing Biotica technology as a company and its activities/relevance - a book and a journal Pdxmag (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added another - hope this helps! :-) Pdxmag (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this well and looking for more sources :) Regarding the sources you've added, I would appreciate other editors to weigh in, as the Cell Press article is paywalled for me, I can only view a small snippet of the IOS Press book's relevant section, and the Elsevier publication's relevant discussion may not meet

significant coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – per nom, but it seems like Pdxmag will contribute some better sources. At the moment, it’s a delete. TLA (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in light of the sources that Pdxmag has added. Promotional articles are certainly a concern, and a place where we ought to be more strict than normal due to the potential for abuse, but I am less concerned about promotion when an article's written in 2023 about a business that dissolved in 2015. It seems to me like there's a good number of usable sources here. jp×g 🗯️ 06:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to discuss whether the new sources are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There's not really anything here that amounts to

WP:NCORP

.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.