Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benitec Biopharma

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benitec Biopharma[edit]

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

They are probably notable, but I can not figure out how to rewrite it to remove the promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An edit is already being in the pipeline and so a rewrite can incorporated if guidance is given. For example, can an example sentence of what is not acceptable be provided? Can another company Wikipedia page be suggested to demonstrate the difference?

Just as background, when originally composing/submitting the article, other company Wikipedia pages were reviewed in order to understand what could and could not be said, and further advice was sought from the Wikipedia community. All content is referenced to as many independent sources as possible. The submission was approved. The content has not been altered since. Snrichards (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least stubify. Much of the information is just completely unnecessary including the speaking tour of the CEO, a list of unexplained patents and details about a bunch of obviously, individually non-notable programs. I'm inclined to agree that the company itself might pass WP:CORPDEPTH but we'd need a machete to hack through the untended backyard that is promo-spam here. The "submission" was "approved" by a single editor, not the broader community. I'm not sure he was necessarily wrong to pass it through AFC but that doesn't mean its existence here cannot be challenged thereafter. Stalwart111 07:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issue is not how the article is written, but whether the company is notable. My impression is that it does not meet WP:CORP. I found a few mentions in minor publications [1] [2], but nothing significant. Otherwise just the usual information about the stock price (it is publicly traded, which often gives notability, but it's a penny stock and draws no significant coverage in financial circles). --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Benitec holds patents on a unique method of RNA interference that can modify the outcomes of genetically caused diseases and are participating in FDA approved clinical trials. They are collaborating with well-known medical institutions and private companies world wide testing the efficacy of therapies, which will improve the lives of millions. Their technologies are well explained on their web site. The links to their web site on the Wikipedia page were misspelled (broken) which drew my interest to this page. The low share price, characterized as "penny stock" by one editor, is not significant. Many hi-tech companies that changed the world in the past 30-40 years started with low share prices and were initially marginally profitable because they were unknown. For example, companies in the field of RNA interference which have recently experienced rapid price increases are Alnylam (ALNY) and Tekmira (TKMR).SonuT (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And those things make this company notable how? Stalwart111 11:20, 28 November 2013 (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.