Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beam Therapeutics

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. I find HighKing's contribution the most persuasive from a policy standpoint, and I also note here that I discounted two contributions (one keep, one comment) on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beam Therapeutics[edit]

[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 yet notable -- no products, just raising money. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom rationale by DGG. Furthermore I don’t see any WP:ORGDEPTH and needless to say, WP:ORG isn’t satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other biotechnology companies with articles, such as CRISPR Therapeutics, who do not have approved drugs, but whose notability is inferred by sources. Uhooep (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a publicly listed company with a $5 billion market cap, and with notable principles, I would assume it is notable. However, there seems to be almost no public information on this company; their S-1 is probably the best source for what the company actually is, and that's a primary source. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are lots of stubs on Wikipedia, what is the problem with including an article like this? Throwing articles like this out of Wikipedia is of no benefit. The fact that the company is worth billions of dollars and the article is building a references list of reliable sources should mean that notability is met. - Indefensible (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google reports "About 120,000" results mentioning the phrase "Beam Therapeutics"; Bing reports "432,000 Results", which IMHO should pass the notability test by itself. Not only is it publicly traded as User:力 points out, a NASDAQ.com article from a month ago names it one of the "5 Gene Editing Stocks To Watch Now" - a secondary source which appears to be independent (given the inclusion of 5 companies, rather than just shilling for one). They have announced human trials of three products (BEAM-101, BEAM-102, BEAM-201), which would seem to contradict the claim of "no products"? And while the article's cited Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News article mostly summarizes the S-1 and company PR, it appears to have additional color and quotes from interviewing a principal (which I found was excerpted from a longer article in the same publication which covers the academic research on their base editing technology and also mentions Beam Therapeutics in a dozen paragraphs). - 2604:2D80:D90E:7C00:18FB:6657:28FA:F00C (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either mentions-in-passing standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 19 August 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.