Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Cell Technology

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 Speedy delete, it was a clear copyright violation of a number of websites, |[1], [2], [3]. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Cell Technology[edit]

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. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. 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]

That is one of what, ten reasons for deletion. It can meet any one of those and this article does not for notability. It says nothing about needing to do so before deletion. It says nothing about every editor needing to look for sources. The editors who want this article to stay have had a month to do so as it has been tagged for sources/notability for that long. I find it rather odd that everyone says keep, but no one has actually added reliable third party sources to the article. Again if this happens the discussion ends. Aboutmovies 01:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misjudged the purpose of AfD judging by your comments. You're not going to convince anyone to delete an article for lack of notability if sources exist that show evidence of the contrary. It's laughable to suggest that the article be deleted simply because it is not sourced properly. Also, it might take longer than a month. Not everyone is on Wiki every day. Give it some time. We aren't working towards a deadline here. --Cyrus Andiron

01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable company and an article that can be improved by proper sourcing. Aboutmovies, if you have ten reasons to delete the article, why did you only list one? AFD is not cleanup, and should not be used as "cleanup with a deadline". I have limited patience for editors who yell to get their point across. If you can't firmly cite policy, you probably should not be making the nomination in the first place. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite policy, notability. Since this is a company I would assume editors involved in this debate would be familiar with this concept as defined by WP:CORP. I did not say there are ten reasons for deleting this article. I was refering to the fact that the policy cited by someone else about deletion was one of around ten reasons to post an article for deletion and are not instructions for how to go about the AFD process. I tagged the article a month ago and all the editor did was remove the notability tag and write in the edit summary that the company was notable. If you read about notability, that is not enough. The article has to show it through the third party, reliable sources. Simply saying something is notable does not make something notable. As I have said numerous times now, simply add the sources. It's not my job to do this, its not your job either. But if an editor wants an article to stick around, then the onus is on them. When someone AFDs an article I edit on (rarely happens since I make sure they meet the guidelines) I go in and fix the problem, then I go vote. You've cleaned up the article, but did not address the notability issue. However if people would like additional reasons, since there is only one source and that is for some of the finacials, this article would be original research which I believe is not allowed. That's why sourcing is required to avoid all these issues. Otherwise there would never be a need for an notability requirement with reliable sources, since someone can just say, this person/place/thing is notable without having to demonstrate it. And with the dozen or so AFDs I been associated with, they all were about notability. So no need to show the notability of a subject would mean no real need for the AFD process. And then Wikipedia just becomes a blog. Aboutmovies 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should become familiar with the policy yourself. This is taken directly from WP:CORP: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. I'm pretty sure that a few of the sources I listed above would qualify. --Cyrus Andiron

12:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source from the Nature journal that was mentioned in the article. Unfortunately, a big chunk of the article contains material lifted directly from the Advanced Cell Technology website [10]. There is no doubt that the subject is notable and making waves in the biotech industry [11]. However, the article will definitely require an overhaul in order to adhere to Wikipedia policy. --Cyrus Andiron

12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I nominated it for Speedy Deletion. The article has been a copyvio from the very beginning as explained on the talk page. It needs to be deleted. The company is notable, but the article will have to be created from scratch if someone desires to do so. --Cyrus Andiron

12:52, 10 May 2007 (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.