Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darnitsa (pharmaceutical company)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darnitsa (pharmaceutical company)[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)

An article about a Ukranian company that reads like native advertising, and has been heavily edited by a sockpuppet farm of undisclosed paid editors. Most of the references seem to be adapted press releases and I'm not finding anything here or online that looks independent with a byline. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching for this subject just now and was surprised to discover this Wikipedia article about them. That said, after thoroughly reading the article I can't say outright deletion would be warranted because the company has been significantly covered by in Ukrainian sources.Maybe the article should be redirected to Glib Zagoriy? IndyaShri (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage looks like press releases and pr in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards and press mentions seem to be utterly trivial. There is no claim to have produced or invented any new haramaceticals, just for manufacturing known one lie all ithe othe such firms in the industry. For a mention to. be more than PR there has to be something significant to base it on, and donating 6 respirators is a just the sort of charitable events firms do for the PR. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not the worst I've seen, but it's very poorly sourced. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC) I note that reference 1 is a dead link, and reference 2 notes its big project was cancelled. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep researched this company it looks very promising, although this article is maybe WP:TOOSOON --Devokewater (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I have some difficulties with checking which Ukrainian sources are realiable, but TSN.ua lists it among top Ukranian companies, altough with a bit of soubt, saying "We decided to include these two pharmaceutical companies as the leader of Ukrainian pharmaceutical market", Delo.ua also mentions this two companies while reviewing Ukrainian pharmaceutical market, Interfax Ukraine (not to confuse with Russian Interfax) says "Since 1998, it is a leader of Ukrainian pharmaceutical market <...>, 13,76% in 2019". Sometimes sockpuppet farms create articles on notable subjects, but someone should surely clean it up and check facts. Wikisaurus (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the current sourcing is rubbish but reading the uk.wiki article suggests that the company is highly likely to be notable, but has just paid incompetents to create thus article. I suppose if it is genuinely Nita Oe it wint be hard to create a much better article using RIS if this is deleted. Mccapra (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/draftify. The current article looks spammish, but there is potentially reliable content to expand it like [1]. Until such a content is used, well, this is SPAM, and at best it should be drafitied. If someone was paid to create it, they need to keep working, this is not yet ready to be public. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with Piotrus. The company looks notable, but the article needs to be rewritten. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 2 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.