Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altogen Biosystems (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. As an aside, the last AfD should also have been closed as delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Altogen Biosystems
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the previous prod having been removed, there was zero support for keeping this at the last AFD. Despite there being zero support for keeping this, the AFD was closed as "no consensus". So we're back, and the subject is no closer to meeting either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH than it was before. The available "sources" are a combination of press releases and primary material. Pinging - the only other person who contributed to the last discussion (the nominator).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. No reliable third party source found on a quick search. Fails general notability.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  11:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is mostly PR and primary. Closest two to good coverage are very short mentions from media of limited interest, not enough. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Angelo DePalma is cited by a good portion of 4,600 results in Google Scholar. So much for AUD
 * Delete per the first nomination.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as it should have been the first time around. Fails WP:GNG. -- Kinu  t/c 20:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are good, as shown above, and the 44 results in Scholar for Altogen itself, and probably other stuff as well, which I would search for if I was not filled with renewed disgust for the commonplace laziness of deletors. Nom and deletion arguments fail BEFORE. Anarchangel (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A majority of those Scholar hits state nothing more than "we used their product" by naming the company as a parenthetical without providing any information. -- Kinu  t/c 04:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And WP:BEFORE was covered twice - I contributed to the last deletion discussion and searched for sources then. In fact I explicitly said as much. You're free to file misguided, woefully uninformed and bad-faith personal attacks elsewhere. Oh wait, no you're not.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.