Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chughtai Lab

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. asilvering (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chughtai Lab (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)

Fails WP:NCORP - collaborations, partnerships coverage is not useful per WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It is a very prominent lab within Pakistan. I think it should be tagged for a rewrite or something like that. Wikibear47 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Prominence or popularity doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Gheus (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very notable and prominent lab in Pakistan. Also it already has 3 existing references from major newspapers of Pakistan. AfD forum is not for clean up. Frankly, getting tired of seeing this 'dismissive attitude' towards many legitimate references as 'promotional'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the analysis of those three references:

  1. It is about a corporate partnership, marked as "BR Web Desk", no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV.

  2. Not directly about the company, but about a vaccine. Full of quotes, Chughtai said this and that.

  3. Again, MOU, a press release style article with no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It seems notable enough as the lab was also embroiled in a sort of a political controversy (see: Dawn). Mister Banker (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far the deletion argument is the more compelling, but hasn't had much support outside the nominator. Final relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The lab is prominent, but we rely on NORG to determine which articles to keep, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. While a major lab has not much notability for an article. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2024 (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.