Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altogen Labs CRO

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altogen Labs CRO[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)

Does not pass NCORP Natureium (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If delete: also delete AltoFect as redirect per WP:G8 — IVORK _Discuss 03:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did not start the article, but I did edit it substantially. Maybe it should be renamed to just Altogen Labs? If you look at the news sources for "Altogen Labs" it's a far more comprehensive list than for "Altogen Labs CRO". Granted, most of the sources on the current page are kind of crappy, I think a few of them warrant an article (GHP magazine is detailed). I started the Altogen Inc. page because apparently there are two Altogen's (the Inc. I think is more focused on chemicals and the CRO is more so preclinical work), but maybe Altogen Labs CRO should be merged with Altogen Inc.? The Altogen Inc. page has sources from Science and Nature (although they are not solely about Altogen) and combined with the current sources it might be enough to gain notability. I started AltoFect as well (inspiration gleaned from the lipofectamine page), but that probably isn't notable, so sorry about that. Natureium, I think the current Altogen Labs CRO page might find a spot in User:Natureium/todo, it seems to have sources of around the same quality as Aderis Pharmaceuticals, Biovista, and RespireRx, just to name a few, and I think it could be improved upon. I also am not really sure why Altogen Labs CRO should be deleted in context of other biotech companies (see Asuragen, Biotecnol, Diabetology Ltd, Esteve, etc.), and although comparison is not a reason to keep an article, I don't see why this should fail NCORP so easily. Maybe I'm too lenient and have a misunderstanding of NCORP, if so, my apologies. CarlBjornasson (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion from a throwaway PR account, clear UPE. Sourcing is churnalism, PR, primary and dead. Nothing good for WP:NCORP. The GHP magazine article mentioned above might be detailed but it is by them, it is not independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename - I don't think this is really different from Altogen Biosystems (where does the Inc. even come from?), and the content of both should be merged (and really condensed) into just Altogen Labs. I can make a merged Altogen Labs page (just not right now) and that might be cleaner than this mess. I haven't done much research on this yet, but just from preliminary searches, it seems to be well-known in the biomedical field and has enough coverage (I'm reading the "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" on GNG). I'll make the merged page either today or tomorrow, but regardless, Altogen Labs CRO and Altogen Biosystems (and Altogen Inc. for that matter) should not have their own pages. Where are the refs? (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice. Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing. Likely UPE based on behavioural evidence; let's not encourage spammers by keeping such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails NCORP; obvious adverisement. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made the merged page at Altogen Labs, which has far less puffery and unnecessary sections. See my vote above - I think redirects would suffice Where are the refs? (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This will continue to be a pain until an admin salts all three iterations of this toxic article. 2Joules (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Altogen Labs has been created while this is running, by User:Where are the refs?, and is now up for AfD by User:2Joules at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altogen Labs. Pinging User:Natureium, User:CarlBjornasson, User:Duffbeerforme, User:K.e.coffman, who have !voted here. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I made the Altogen Labs page as per my comment above - I thought that Altogen Labs CRO and Altogen Inc (or Biosystems, whatever) were better off merged in a shorter page titled Altogen Labs, and that the other pages should be redirects and not the other way around. This deletion discussion is about content on Altogen Labs CRO that is invariably promotional and excessive; I tried writing a version that was at least neutral with what I found to be the most reliable sources from both of the other articles, so if you had read what I wrote previously it would have made sense to have this discussion focused on Altogen Labs and not the other pages.Where are the refs? (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With respect to the above editor, the sources in the reflist remain very weak.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, please look at the reflist for the Altogen Labs page when I first created it (it is currently a redirect because of a speedy discussion I didn't get to see in time), I know the Altogen Labs CRO page is pretty weak in terms of sourcing.Where are the refs? (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's look at the refs on that page;

1. Already in the pretty weak Altogen Labs CRO page.

2. Already in the Altogen Labs CRO page.

3. Passing mention. Does not verify the claim made.

4. Passing mention of Altogen Biosystems. Does not verify the claim made of being a subsidiary.

5. Routine product announcememnt. Does not verify the claim made of being a subsidiary.

6. Already in the Altogen Labs CRO page.

Yep, reflist remains very weak. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2018 (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.