Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GVK Biosciences (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. After a bit of thinking, it seems like we have a consensus to delete. I've opted to ignore a few single-purpose accounts and drive-by IPs in part because they for the most part do not address the notability issues. That leaves Rollingcontributor's keep and HighKing's delete, and HighKing's delete is a bit more on-point at describing why the sources are inappropriate. Thus on balance this is a "delete", but with proper sourcing and a more dispassionate article toneit may be worth recreating later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

GVK Biosciences
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarable business. Reeks of spam. TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Contains promotional content that needs to be removed. Other than that, seems to have received enough coverage. RoCo (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article is objective. Information related to this organization would be useful for the stakeholders including research career aspirants, scientists engaged in pharmaceutical research, regulators and pharmaceutical companies. — Ravbjain (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Cleaned some information that was not encyclopedic. Now it seems a good to go. BadhabiJane (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — BadhabiJane (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete -- I don't see how (at the moment of this writing) the article is "good to go". Sections include: "Awards and Achievements" & "Company Structure". Typical corporate spam on an unremarkable subsidiary. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We have way too many articles that aren't neutral, and we apparently cannot fix them all, the numbers are not decreasing. This article was made for promotion, and contains hidden and obvious neutrality problems, delete.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The page contains information about India's second largest CRO. The article can be continued after the recent edit that has cleared awards and recognition section that was not completely neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramkuru (talk • contribs) 09:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)  — Pramkuru (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: Article is objective and the company is notable. A research company that is on the radar of the EMA, rightly or wrongly, is notable. A potential researcher on Data Tampering could find the page useful. This is not a promotion also, since the company is projected objectively. Ankur Jain
 * Delete The company fails WP:CORP and GNG. I have looked at the references and not a single one is useful for the purposes of establishing notability. Either that are PR releases (therefore not independent) or interviews/quotes (therefore not independent) or announcements on funding (not acceptable). I suggest that the closing admin takes a good look at the arguments and editors, in particular editors such as Ravbjain (2 edits), BadhabiJane (20 edits, mostly on the article itself *after* this AfD) and Pramkuru (2 edits). Perhaps a closer look is warranted??? -- HighKing ++ 11:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article from The Hindu (regarding selection as one of the top 25 projects including IKEA), Business Standard (Tarun Khanna, a Harvard professor joining the company), India Today article on the Indian CEOs take on Make in India to support Indian manufacturing sector, LiveMint article regarding the ban of drugs by EMA, Outsourced Pharma's article on how the FDA responded to the drugban and the overall idea of data manipulation by Indian pharmaceutics are covered in the article along with the timeline of tech company. So, my understanding is that the article can be called neutral in the approach. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. I would look forward to improve. BadhabiJane (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * keeep the company is a renowned company and it is shown clearly in their content. they have followed Wikipedia criteria for neutrality and it is not promotional in any way.Jamesflare (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * keep the links are veritable and the content follows Wikipedia policy about company profiles. it deserves a chance on Wikipedia. Imaginemiah (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC
 * keep the content article is standard, neutral and the links are veriftable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.226.242 (talk)
 * Comment. I'm starting to get worried about the sudden attention this discussion is getting from IPs and editors who are new or have done little work outside this. RoCo (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page seems fine to me. Looks as though some of the edits mentioned above have raised its standard and ensured that the tone is neutral and the sources are appropriate. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (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.