Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangamo BioSciences

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. Consensus is to delete. Kudos to CorporateM for being upfront about his COI disclosure. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sangamo BioSciences

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

The article gives the appearance of being well-sourced without actually being so. The sources are written by a Forbes "contributor"[1], only briefly mention the company[2][3] or are just press releases[4][5]. The article has content like "a major step toward immunological functional control of HIV" (a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim) cited to a press release. I have not found any sources to suggest the company is notable and promotional articles on anything marginally notable are typically still deleted. Please see the COI disclosure on my user page. CorporateM (Talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: copy/pasted promo; clear COI. Quis separabit? 14:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps redirect to Zinc finger nuclease#Prospects. I was unable to find more than brief mentions of the company in reliable sources, so it seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Perhaps the most notable thing about the company is their SB-728-T clinical trial, which was discussed in reliable sources like a New York Times article and a Scientific American article. These independent RS suggest that a mention of the trial at WP is reasonable and indeed it is already at Zinc finger nuclease#Prospects in the last sentence. I'd be OK with a redirect to that section, but because it isn't a perfect target, delete is a reasonable option too. --Mark viking (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work @Mark viking:. Personally I don't think a redirect is sensible in this case, but incorporating those citations into the Zinc fingers page might be. Not enough source material for a dedicated page, but a few sentences maybe. Please note my COI disclosure. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the NYT source to the zinc finger article. So noted on your disclosure--as always, thank you for being up front about your COI status. --Mark viking (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing at all convincing for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of available sources confirming notability - the subject appears to fail WP:CORP - and for the overly promotional tone (only really a step away from blatant advertising), which given the notability issues doesn't seem like something that could be fixed by a rewrite. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:23, 3 June 2016 (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.