Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit.bio

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Mark Kotter. Just noting that the target article has also been brought to AFD for a deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bit.bio

[edit]

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

Bit.bio (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)

There does not appear to me to be any independent, reliable, in-depth coverage for this company, as required by WP:NCORP. I have conducted a search I believe to be extensive, though perhaps not comprehensive, and the results are as follows:

Source assessment
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
All the citations already in the article seem to be pressers except the Forbes contributor and WP:TECHCRUNCH so skipping to:
Reynolds, Matt (2021-12-20). "This Startup Is Making—and Programming—Human Cells". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
 – Yes – Maybe the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph, and the first two of the last, are both directly about the subject and not quotes. No Bit of a stretch to call those three secondary.
"Cambridge Company Bit Bio Presses Enter To The Software Of Life". The Healthcare Technology Report. 2020-06-23. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
 No Seems like WP:TRADES likely paraphrasing a presser to me No idea how reliable
Skipped, quickfail on other criteria
Yes Yes No Namecheck due to quoting founder, no actual coverage No
Google didn't pick up these ones for me for some reason, but:
Bawden, Tom (2020-10-22). "Scientists could make an organ from scratch within a decade after cracking human cell code". i. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
 No Yes No Seems like a routine rehash of PR material to me No
Whipple, Tom (2020-10-27). "Bit.Bio: British firm cracks code for stem cells". The Times. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
 No Yes No Slightly better than the one from i but still routine coverage of the partnership announcement IMO –
No Again, this is 90% quotes Yes No No

(No relevant results were found for Elpis BioMed)

There are, of course, hundreds of other press releases, but I've omitted those for brevity. Additionally, even if appropriate sources meeting NCORP are found for this subject, half of the paragraphs in § Origins are biomedical in nature, which makes the sourcing to press releases instead of actually reliable sources highly inappropriate, and I would advocate that the article be confined to draftspace on those grounds alone (or otherwise removed from indexing). The creator of the article is also a single purpose account, though they have denied a COI. It is possible that they are simply an overly enthusiastic new editor. Also noting I have no objection to a redirect, with or without retaining article history. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on UPE and related Mark Kotter article
Alpha3031, just a brief note to say that there is abundant off-wiki evidence to indicate that the article creator here is a UPE linked to the company. That being the case, I wonder if you had considered the possibility of also referring the article on Bit.bio founder Mark Kotter to AfD as it is equally promotional and the work of the same UPE user? (I would do so myself but for unfamiliarity with the process of creating an AfD).
Further info on the background can be found at the relevant thread at COIN, here [1]. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I did skim that thread but I missed the part about off-wiki evidence. If that's the case then the paid-en-wp VRT queue may be able to do things that AfD does not normally do, like enforce AfC (or block the editor in question). However, I will make it a priority to conduct a BEFORE for that article as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. My feeling is that the very easily accessible evidence is so compelling that referral to paid-en-wp should not really be necessary. The user is clearly a promo-only SPA with a disruptive editing pattern who has ignored several warnings. The transparent nature of the UPE should therefore be sufficient for the user to be site blocked.
Thank you for looking at the Mark Kotter article, much appreciated. If the two articles end up being deleted then hopefully that will put an end to the promo/SPA/COI activity around these subjects. Axad12 (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On an initial review, I would expect deletion to be an unlikely outcome as Kotter would be measured against WP:NPROF (though I could be wrong, I don't do BIO AfDs as often). On the other hand, WP:BLP applies to positive content as well as negative, so I expect the best path forward would be to exclude any content that seems overly promotional, with the use of either the usual Dispute resolution or blocks and page protection as required, depending on the specific cause of the issue. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 and Axad12: Yep an h-index of 48 is an easy pass of WP:PROF #1. SmartSE (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smartse, noted. Thank you for the work you have done on the Kotter article to bring it closer in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very strong delete, as per nom. I'd also request that sanctions be implemented against the creator, who has been asked to declare their transparent UPE/COI status but has refused to do so, and has repeatedly removed COI etc templates from the articles they have created. Axad12 (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Postscript: Given the negative contents of the source assessment table I am against a redirect. The additional source material not covered by the table is apparently sourced to press releases. Once all the various kinds of poor sourcing are stripped out, what is there left to redirect? Axad12 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect means there will be nothing at the page and anyone trying to go to Bit.bio will be taken to Mark Kotter instead Axad12. Not sure what you mean by what is left, unless I'm misunderstanding something? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I was momentarily (and rather foolishly) confusing 'redirect' with 'merge'. My mistake. Axad12 (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, since the biography is notable, we should probably redirect there. SmartSE (talk) 08:17, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bit.bio&oldid=1253656141"