Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioinformatics solutions inc

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinformatics solutions inc[edit]

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

Non-notable small company advert Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I A7ed it and it was declined because two of the products were blue-linked (PEAKS and RAPTOR (software), which I did not see at the time. Both of the product pages appear to be spam creations as well, with one of them having either sock or meatpuppetry involved to save it from G11 back in 2008 [1]. As for this article, there is no in-depth third-party reliable sourcing out there. When I checked before the A7 tag, all that could be found were blogs and press releases. Everything else was using bioinformatics in a generic sense about another company's products. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This series of articles may have been created by single-purpose corporate accounts. Bioinformatics solutions inc by Bm-posting, PEAKS by FTMS ("for tandem mass spectrometry"?), RAPTOR (software) by Bsiraptor. I'm an inclusionist, but this does quack like a PR campaign. Certes (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I haven't nominated the software yet because I'm still trying to determine if they have any notability, but it does appear to be a COI/paid-editing situation on them as part of a PR campaign. If anyone who is more familiar with the subject matter could take a look at the software to see if it is notable independent of the publisher it would be great. If not, I'll probably AfD them at some point today or tomorrow. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are all about the types of research the company does, not about the company itself. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.