Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analyte Health, Inc.

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 and Salt. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analyte Health, Inc.[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable company. Only one source to be found indicating any type of in-depth coverage, and that from a local newspaper. Aster Award claim has to be discounted, based on the number of such awards handed out each year (30 in the category "Websites" alone, which is one of 79 possible categories). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider A7ing, and if not that, just Delete. This article was deleted twice (by me) yesterday as Analyte Health for being promotional. The author then took it to AfC...and then apparently changed their mind and put it back in mainspace, under another title to get around the SALTing I had put in place. The content of this version of the article is, indeed, an improvement on the previous versions, but it neglects to establish any apparent notability or, really, importance of the company. I'm turning up nothing of any use in news and google searching, and I suspect that's because the notability is just not there, period. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise me on how to improve the article so there is notability? --DIM302 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — DIM302 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is the wrong place to ask, but I'll answer: look at WP:CORP, WP:NPOV and the Business FAQ. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as Fluffernutter says. I don't see it as belonging in the project at this point, unless more [[WP:RS|sourcess] can be supplied to assert notability. As it stands it has circular references and a mention in Bloomberg that ascertains the company exists, not that it is notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and salt per the inexcusable history described by Fluffernutter. Consider also some kind of sanction against the author who persists in creating these spam articles. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, MelanieN, I suspect this is more a case of a new user going "Wait, my article is gone? What happened? Let me try again..." than "Mwahaha I shall deliberately continue re-creating something that I understand should not be created!" That said though, at some point he's going to have to either notice the problems with his article or get a stronger indication that he has to stop. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a very kind interpretation - considering that you were the one who warned them about disruptive editing - and considering that they have now created at least three articles about this company (deliberately changing the name to avoid the block) as well as at least one article for the related company SexualHealth. (The user is an SPA, but denies conflict of interest.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2012 (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.