Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequencing.com
- 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 Brandon Colby. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sequencing.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article appears to be a promotional article about a company that has received no non-press release coverage in independent secondary sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Independent secondary sources do exist to support Sequencing.com's inclusion as a notable company: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.97.161.50 (talk • contribs)
- Chicago Tribune source is the only major independent source, and it is not about the company, but about a person who went to the founder of the company. First world med is recycling the Yahoo Finance press release, Concierge Medicine is a press release, and the subsequent story isn't independent since they are in partnership. Final source is also a press release. The Genome Web source is the only one that gives in-depth coverage,
and it reads like a routine trade publication article when a new company is founded and sends out a press release.TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Chicago Tribune source is the only major independent source, and it is not about the company, but about a person who went to the founder of the company. First world med is recycling the Yahoo Finance press release, Concierge Medicine is a press release, and the subsequent story isn't independent since they are in partnership. Final source is also a press release. The Genome Web source is the only one that gives in-depth coverage,
- Keep: Genome Web is the authoritative media outlet for genomics industry and they only cover notable industry news. Their coverage is several pages long and appears as an objective assessment of the company. The other articles appear supportive of notable company coverage although I understand your dismissiveness of First world med article. 207.97.161.50 (talk • contribs)
- You only get to vote once. Please strike one of your two !votes. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- merge to Brandon Colby; WP:TOOSOON. The only good source is the genomeweb article (and it is a good source). There is one other "independent" source, by freelancer Barbara Sadick (here) that was syndicated in a bunch of Tribune Publishing papers in June 2016. There is no encyclopedic content about the company that can be generated from it (it was nice marketing work though). So for now merge, and it can grow there and be SPLIT if that ever becomes necessary. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- NB - the page as I found it here was a nightmare of press releases and other SPS refs. I cleaned it up and it looks like this now. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. It is so easy to look at an overstuffed PROMO and just decide not to tackle it. Hats off to you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- NB - the page as I found it here was a nightmare of press releases and other SPS refs. I cleaned it up and it looks like this now. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:ORG. DrStrauss talk 09:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Brandon Colby for lack of Reliable, independent sources. Colby (or someone working with/for him, may be a serial creator not only of non-notable pages, but of at least one other possibly non-notable company, Existence Genetics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Brandon Colby. No reliable independent sources indicating standalone notability. At best, as it is now, the one line it gets at the Brandon Colby article is sufficient. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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.