Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMPLi

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 Scientist.com (company). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Sourced largely from PR-ish items with flowery language, not seeing notability for software. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of notability or sources do you wish to see? Slongo1234 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There are no coverage of this firm from mainstream reliable sources. A lot of current sources are from Scientist.com (the parent company) directly and cannot be properly credited. This leaves us with few sources that I am not fully sure credit whether they are sponsored. The subject lacks general notability for sure. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  !Voting weak delete because it does seem that the subject has won the CPhl award, though I am not sure about the notability of the award itself. Need one more set of eyes on this. TheLonelyPather (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Scientist.com (company): The industry award was to Scientist.com for this initiative, and the Pharma Tech Outlook item discusses it in that context too. COMPLi is covered in the article on Scientist.com so a redirect seems a reasonable WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I cannot find any independent coverage of this software. A redirect to Scientist.com (company) is fine too. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (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.