Deletion of LifeCell International

Comment: Despite peristent attempts by numerous editors to de-spam the article, it has remained essentially promotional in character throughout its life. In answer to the one reason so far given for keeping, being reliable is only one part of the requirements: sources must also give sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. The linked article from "Business Standard" (not "Business-Standards") is merely an announcement that Life Cell International was planning to try to raise money, most of it for "brand building", a smaller part of it to pay cost of planned research. That does not really show notability. Another reference to Business Standard is likewise a mere announcement of Life Cell International's planned work. Checking through the references, I see press releases, at least one self-described "advertorial", other pages on sites which are either clearly not independent or else of doubtful independence, and also several dead links. There are references to pages on web sites the "about us" pages of which describe themselves in such terms as "the authoritative voice of the media, marketing and advertising community in the country" and "committed to creating brands that enable knowledge sharing and business collaboration", which is really marketing-speak for saying that the site exists to publicise and promote information about the businesses covered. Trying to assess the references is not helped by the fact that there are duplicate copies of the same reference, and different references with the same titles. However, it is clear that the substantial majority of the references are of no value whatsoever for the purpose of showing notability of the kind required by Wikipedia's |notability guidelines, and looking at the small minority of references that might be of some value, the sum total of information does not amount to substantial coverage. If this is the best that has been achieved by a concerted effort over nine months by single-purpose editors battling to try to prove notability which has been questioned, it does not give much faith in the business's notability. Add to that the promotional nature of the article, and the case for deletion is, in my view, convincing. ''The editor who uses the pseudonym
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)