Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TATAA Biocenter

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 redirect‎ to Mikael Kubista#TATAA Biocenter. If anyone wants to merge a bit from the page history, feel free. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TATAA Biocenter

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Relies almost entirely on primary sources. Unable to find any sources that show it meets WP:NCORP. The only secondary coverage is about an event - the former CEO being removed and suing a law firm that he says gave him bad counsel that led to his removal. But there’s no WP:INHERITORG from being associated with an event (and the event here does not even have sufficient enduring significance to qualify for a page under WP:Event in any case. I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by this company. I do not want to waste the time of volunteer editors to evaluate proposed corrections and edit requests on a page that does not qualify.) Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is not particualrly strong. Notability is not clear. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning keep - article definitely has an excessive detail problem, but they received some non-routine seeming coverage for their COVID-19 testing program (added 2 sources to article, although one isn't accessible w/o pressreader). Zzz plant (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the sources you cited help the page meet notability standards as defined by WP:NCORP. One citation leads to a Wikipedia article and the other is a routine news announcement on a radio broadcast. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source I added doesn't lead to a Wikipedia page? It's just not linkable via PressReader so the only link in the citation is to the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. Zzz plant (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the nominator may have been influenced more by a perceived conflict of interest (COI) issue than by the actual question of notability. The company in question was founded by Mikael Kubista, and similar patterns have occurred before. For example, on Mikael Kubista's own Wikipedia page, there was repeated removal of content related to a legal dispute involving TATAA Biocenter by SPA @ArtChomsky which was settled by an admin and the argument to remove a fact related TATAA there was irrational. A similar issue seems to be happening here—there appears to be an effort, possibly coordinated behind the scenes, to suppress certain information by removing pages from Wikipedia. This raises concerns about the integrity of the platform’s commitment to neutrality and transparency.

I urge editors to review this situation carefully, with special attention to the quality and relevance of the sources cited, to ensure that content is evaluated fairly and not unduly influenced by COI concerns or efforts to obscure verifiable information.ManIxal (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They appear to have developed a pcr "thing" I don't really understand (https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/hum.2021.29195.bfs?journalCode=hum), with coverage here of it being used in an experiment [1]. Not sure how that affects notability, but there are several dozen hits in Gscholar using their name. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This source comes up [2], it either reads as a company profile or a press release, but I don't know enough to !vote based on the sourcing I've found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources helps establish notability for the company. The first source doesn’t even mention it except for in a footnote which cites to the company’s press release [3]; the second source is a student dissertation and the third is the company’s own marketing. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to reach quorum, or at least a stronger endorsement of the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:ManIxal You haven’t said anything about WP:NCORP and your sensitivity to the lawsuit suggests you might be a litigant. Do you have an undisclosed WP:COI? Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more inclined towards a redirect to Mikael Kubista § TATAA Biocenter per WP:NOPAGE. Where sources are primarily focused on a single specific issue rather than the company as a whole, I see no reason why a separate standalone article would be required at this point in time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: based on the discussion after the sources I identified above, I don't see enough coverage to show notabiltiy Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mikael Kubista § TATAA Biocenter. They've received some decent-ish coverage of COVID-19 testing program and they did develop a two-tailed PCR which other labs now use, however I think we're still short of WP:NCORP, I would need to see at least one more in-depth source to vote !keep. Zzz plant (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2025 (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.