Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BL-1010

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) 23:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BL-1010

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

One ref is a press release, this stub looks like the start of a promotional article. No indication of notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. The fact that there is a similar article is not a reason to keep, and that compound is in Phase II/III trials, which is more that can be said for this one. shoy (reactions) 19:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See similar pages BL-1020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qr972500 (talk • contribs) — Qr972500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Qr972500 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.

Please see WP:WAX. Comparing to an existing article is meaningless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this meets WP:GNG. See""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". For coverage, see [1], [2], [3] etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.82 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — 128.138.65.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The third example doesn't even mention this at all. The first doesn't in the short summary given. The other is a press release on Market Watch, of all places. That isn't what significant coverage means, SG means the primary purpose of the article is to cover that topic, and it is by a neutral party, not a press release. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as my searches found several results... for other items and nothing for this much less for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems the same chemical matter has been called by different names which diluted the coverage. Suggest to strengthen the scientific relevance and elaborate the relevant background though. Mmsumoer (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Mmsumoer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete for lack of secondary sources determining notability. This article and a few others on related topics are the work of SPA Qr972500. Suspect some WP:SPIP. New Media Theorist (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG, as per Dennis. Searches did not turn up enough to show its notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 23 September 2015 (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.