Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Cell Technology

Advanced Cell Technology

Notability not demonstrated in article Aboutmovies 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability appears to be established in the second paragraph. This article is terrible and needs a re-write, preferably about the significant technology developed rather than about the company. Nonetheless, I see notability established here. -Amatulic 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable enough per WP:CORP Thunderwing 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Before deciding, please take the time to read WP:CORP:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources.

This article has zero reliable sources that demonstrate the notability. Notability is not "best cell tech company" its is coverage via relaible, thrid party sources. This article has none of those. They may exist, and if they do then they need to be added. But the article has been tagged for over a month the editors involved have not done so. It needs to go. Aboutmovies 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these articles assert notability. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I'm not going to source the article, but this should help. Let me know if you need more. --Cyrus Andiron 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make this more clear as apparently the "artilce does not assert notability" at the top has been overlooked. The company may or may not be notable, I really don't care, but the ARTICLE does not show it. So posting links here does not fix the problem. Furthermore, the second source is a press release issued by this company so it would not be a third party source. Then the wright reports and Hoovers articles should not be used, as they get their info from the companies. Those two are fine to use for sources in general (where they are headquartered, revenue #s), but not to demonstrate notability. If anyone out there wants to make the article demonstrate notablity, then this discussion would be over. Aboutmovies 00:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in my comment above, the article asserts notability in the second paragraph. Sources apparently support that assertion. The fact that these sources aren't included in the article isn't a reason to delete it. Instead, it's a reason to tag the article appropriately. -Amatulic 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject is notable, then the article will not be deleted. AfD is not supposed to be used to improve an article. Cleanup tags have only been in place for a month. Give the original author some time to work on it. This is taken directly from the top of the AFD page:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

Perhaps next time you should read and adhere to that warning. --Cyrus Andiron

00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's only valid for deletion if, as Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion states, "All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed." If an article lacks sources, you at least try to look for sources before putting it up for deletion. Phony Saint 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]