Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LifeCell International

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LifeCell International

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo piece for a company of dubious notability. Reference list comprised almost entirely of press releases. Article author has repeatedly removed advert tag from article, even earning a short block for his efforts. --Finngall ^talk 22:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - The reference(s) from Business-Standards (www.business-standard.com/article/companies/lifecell-to-raise-rs-46-crore-via-pe-110122300064_1.html ) is/are reliable! but I am not sure about Financial Express (healthcare.financialexpress.com/201104/market13.shtml). CutestPenguin (Talk) 06:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite peristent attempts by numerous editors to de-spam the article, it has remained essentially promotional in character throughout its life. In answer to the one reason so far given for keeping, being reliable is only one part of the requirements: sources must also give sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. The linked article from "Business Standard" (not "Business-Standards") is merely an announcement that Life Cell International was planning to try to raise money, most of it for "brand building", a smaller part of it to pay cost of planned research. That does not really show notability. Another reference to Business Standard is likewise a mere announcement of Life Cell International's planned work. Checking through the references, I see press releases, at least one self-described "advertorial", other pages on sites which are either clearly not independent or else of doubtful independence, and also several dead links. There are references to pages on web sites the "about us" pages of which describe themselves in such terms as "the authoritative voice of the media, marketing and advertising community in the country" and "committed to creating brands that enable knowledge sharing and business collaboration", which is really marketing-speak for saying that the site exists to publicise and promote information about the businesses covered. Trying to assess the references is not helped by the fact that there are duplicate copies of the same reference, and different references with the same titles. However, it is clear that the substantial majority of the references are of no value whatsoever for the purpose of showing notability of the kind required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and looking at the small minority of references that might be of some value, the sum total of information does not amount to substantial coverage. If this is the best that has been achieved by a concerted effort over nine months by single-purpose editors battling to try to prove notability which has been questioned, it does not give much faith in the business's notability. Add to that the promotional nature of the article, and the case for deletion is, in my view, convincing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per User:JamesBWatson's analysis of the existing sourcing and separate searches under both the firm's current name and pre-2008 name (Asia Cryo-Cell Private Ltd) turning up no evidence of attained notability. (Note that there is also a LifeCell part of Kinetic Concepts, which appears unrelated to this firm.) AllyD (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2014 (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.