Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biopharma LLC

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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biopharma LLC[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)

I have previously nominated this for PROD (and also for SD, before that), but the nomination wasn't deemed uncontroversial enough and I was advised to open an AfD. The rationale is the same as in the PROD nomination:

I would like to renominate the article for deletion again, on the grounds of WP:G5. I agree that my SD nomination was too early. The only substantial edits to this page were by confirmed sockpuppets of Bodiadub and Yuraprox, and User:1sonng. I think that 1sonng is a sockpuppet of Yuraprox for reasons written in this SPI. (The said SPI had been closed because 1sonng hadn't edited for a long time.) If you disagree with my judgement of 1sonng, feel free to deprod. I do not think edits of any other users to this article are significant.

Janhrach (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Ukraine. Janhrach (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my review of this article and its Russian and Ukrainian translations suggests it meets the notability criteria. The Ukrainian version just needs some work on its tone. If the reason for this deletion is the issues that the creator has, I agree to take the necessary actions such as deletion. But in terms of notability, there is no doubt and my comment is keep.Dejaqo (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dejaqo, it looks like you are arguing for both deletion and keep. Please bold only the option you are advocating for. Otherwise your comments just cancel each other out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion is that the article was created by banned editors, which is a policy-based reason for deletion. I used AfD because it is not completely uncontroversial that one of the substantial editors is a sockpuppet. Janhrach (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because socks have edited the article doesn't mean we automatically delete. The sock diffs are stale and can easily be fixed by going through and removing ones that are questionable, and I don't see any reason for a full-scale deletion at all. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (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.