Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synergy Pharmaceuticals (2nd nomination)

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. And salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Pharmaceuticals[edit]

[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)

Another run of the mill pharmacy company, which has already been deleted at AfD once. Though a lot of copyvio and puffery has been cleaned up, I still think this is unsalvageable as an encyclopedia article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Time for this article to be … ahem … voided. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: a heavily promotional page: the article as it stands has absolutely nothing which would pass WP:CORPDEPTH and I can't find anything online to rectify this. The fact that it has been recreated so soon after being deleted suggests a likelihood of it happening again. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: per nom - sources fail to show company is notable. Editing history smells of UPE from the creator's editing history. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I nominated it for speedy as promotional, which was converted into this AFD, I think this should be Deleted and Salted. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It should be deleted because it looks too promotional. Wikipedia is against "soapbox". Rdp060707 (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per nom - piling on, there isn't any CORPDEPTH sourcing that would allow us to write a proper article, I'm not seeing how it passes NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - perennially recreated, always spam/promotional. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I think this article is definitely promotional. Looking at the deletion log for this page, I can tell that this is a recreate. User3749 (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2020 (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.