Biotica Technology Ltd.: DDG and DDG news search is also only revealing routine coverage (e.g. [63] [64] ).  WP:NORG requires that the organisation have at least two independent, secondary sources with significant coverage.  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Medicine ,  and United Kingdom .  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks - will hunt for some more secondary sources and add them in.  This is one of my first attempts at a full new page, so pretty new at this.  Learning all the time :-) Pdxmag ( talk ) 12:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a couple of attempts at the secondary sources you suggest discussing Biotica technology as a company and its activities/relevance - a book and a journal Pdxmag ( talk ) 12:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added another - hope this helps!  :-) Pdxmag ( talk ) 13:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for taking this well and looking for more sources :) Regarding the sources you've added, I would appreciate other editors to weigh in, as the Cell Press article is paywalled for me, I can only view a small snippet of the IOS Press book's relevant section, and the Elsevier publication's relevant discussion may not meet significant coverage .  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify – per nom, but it seems like Pdxmag will contribute some better sources.  At the moment, it’s a delete.  TLA (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , in light of the sources that Pdxmag has added.  Promotional articles are certainly a concern, and a place where we ought to be more strict than normal due to the potential for abuse, but I am less concerned about promotion when an article's written in 2023 about a business that dissolved in 2015.  It seems to me like there's a good number of usable sources here.  jp × g 🗯️ 06:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist to discuss whether the new sources are sufficient.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 01:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  None of the source talk about *the company* in a manner which is *in-depth*.  HighKing ++ 18:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There's not really anything here that amounts to WP:SIGCOV that's WP:INDEPENDENT and not WP:ROUTINE .  I don't believe it's enough to pass WP:NCORP .  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.

Discussion outcome: delete