Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applied DNA Sciences

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. ✗plicit 11:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applied DNA Sciences

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:CORP. One of the refs here is a company press release to investors and others are just passing mentions and routine business coverage. Uhooep (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first source does not cover the subject in-depth, the second is Guitar-Muse, which is not a reliable source, and the third is a press release, thus none of the sources cited demonstrate why it should be of inclusion. Multi7001 (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a lot of routine business coverage and stock market movement articles to wade through, but I've found a few articles with proper coverage of the company.

Inside The Two Biotech Companies Working Together On A Covid-19 Vaccine For Cats by a Forbes staff member
The Scramble Is on to Prove Raw Material Provenance by Sourcing Journal, an industry news site
Stony Brook-based Applied DNA Sciences Has Covid-19 Vaccines in Trial by Long Island Press

There are also some Newsday articles about this company covering its COVID-19 research in more detail, but I can't access them due to GDPR - would appreciate if another editor outside Europe could have a look at them for me to see if they count. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which requires a reference to contain in-depth information on the company and "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". The references in the article fails NCORP as pointed out by Multi7001 above. The references posted by Pinktoebeans also don't meet NCORP as follows:

Forbes staff member] reference describes how two companies (one of which is the topic company) are in partnership to develop a Covid-19 vaccine for cats. While there is a lot of info about the vaccine and its development and potential trials, there is no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
The reference in Sourcing Journal relies entirely on information provided during "a recent fireside chat" with a company executive. The article adds no "Independent Content" - all of the info/opinion/etc comes from the company executive - and fails WP:ORGIND.
The Long Island Press reference discusses the company in the context of various Covid-19 efforts the information is provided entirely by the company CEO or other information provided by the involved companies. As above, there is no "Independent Content" and this also fails WP:ORGIND.

I am unable to locate and references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of these sources meet RS standard, or cover the article as a feature, Fails WP:NCORP - needs way more RS to establish notability, which clearly doesn't exist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2021 (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.