Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orgenetics

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. The consensus is that the company lacks sufficient coverage in independent sources to satisfy the GNG. Deor (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orgenetics[edit]

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

No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources provided in teh article or found in my searches. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @EoRdE6: who accepted this at AfC in case I missed something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and GNG - it simply doesn't seem notable. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

Hello, I was the original author of the article. I of course vote for Keep. I wrote the following comment (sic) to DGG's nomination to delete the article, and I think it applies here as well:

I mostly disagree with this nomination as I still think the Wiki article I wrote is factual and non-biased, and represents an article on a company with all the available info. That includes the bit about the humanitarian mission. It's not a praise of the firm. It's a fact drawn from the firm's website. Would you rather have articles that only selectively mention a firm's activities? (FYI, many of the Wikipedia articles on firms (including some Fortune 500 corporations) mention their humanitarian missions as factual statements with references only to the firm's website, and nothing more... So Wikipedia should really try to inspect those as well with the idea of fairness).

As for "notable," the current definition Wikipedia is using is rather incapable, and it's very unfortunate. There are many "notable" and significant firms in the world economies that might not have third party biographies or summaries simply because they're not well known to consumers or masses, or haven't received any attention in the media. That doesn't mean they have no notability or aren't significant in their niche. This particular firm, Orgenetics, makes Organic vitamins from plants. I have found no other company in the nutraceutical industry that is capable of that. In my opinion, this is notable. However, as this particular firm is a raw material supplier, I doubt consumers and mass media would know about this firm. Along the same idea, I doubt this firm would have any substantial third party media coverage due to its niche as a raw material manufacturer and supplier.

Anyways, it seems I fundamentally disagree with this opinion and Wikipedia's policies, so this would all be a moot point until any of it changed. Yours truly, HealthTake (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — HealthTake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I vote keep for now, i agree it certainly is on the lower sides of notable, but if 3rd party verifiable resources can be drummed up I think it could be a fine article. if not we can delete it later not a big deal. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I know what I probably should vote here, I'm just going to leave a comment. After scouring the internet all I can find is this award they received which could be worked in to the article, and multitudes of mentions in Natural Products Insider which could be a good thing, or a business deal of some form. Thank you Thaddeus B for pinging me too. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "author" (ahem) throws WP:OTHERSTUFF in the way, claims facts from the company's website (cough), and is admitting that the article violates policies but it should not matter because it is a niche product. Well, indeed, we rarely apply WP:GNG to companies because of that very reason (most companies have a specific audience) but I still fail to see how this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Tigraan (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tigraan (talk), I'm not claiming that the Wiki policies don't matter because this company has a niche. Please reread what I wrote before misconstruing my statements. It is my opinion that Wikipedia's "notable" policy is incapable, and I gave the aforementioned reasons. I never once mentioned that it shouldn't apply to this article, again, if you read what I wrote. Along the same lines, I did take facts from the company's website, but the references in the article clearly mention that. (Isn't that the point of references anyway?) HealthTake (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my misunderstandings then, but I fail to see how the following can be compatible:

WP policies matter, and should apply to the article (even if they are "incapable");
The article fails to follow the policies ("I doubt this firm would have any substantial third party media coverage (...)");
The article should be kept (that's what a 'keep' !vote means).

By the way, the point of references is not only to point to the company's website. A company's website is considered a reliable source for things like the name of board members, or the postal address, and barring specific circumstances it is usually a good addition to the references. I am not disputing the addition of the company's website; I dispute its use as the sole source of content for their actions, or for notability, as for instance the claim that they have an "emphasis on fair business practices" (putting quotes to indicate it is their own claim does not change the problem). Tigraan (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company, article is sourced to company resources or (imho) unreliable sources. 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete I'm afraid. I couldn't find any third party sources. The award article posted above by Eord is really kind of trivial coverage from a notability perspective. The results from Natural Products Insider appear because Orgenetics sponsors that website and shows up in a sponsors sidebar. HealthTake, you cannot avoid deletion by expressing fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's consensus rules about what's notable. The idea is that if this were such an important company then someone would have written some impartial, detailed article about them. I hope you are not frustrated by this experience; I would like to see nothing more than you taking our advice on-board and contributing many non-promotional articles about notable companies to Wikipedia! AgnosticAphid talk 23:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources actually about this company - mostly press releases and puff. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I Googled for a while and couldn't find any independent Reliable Sources. The award noted above is an Honorable Mention, of an award for which I failed to find independent Reliable Source coverage. Comment to HealthTake: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or Facebook-type site for self-publishing. The criteria for encyclopedia inclusion is that a subject must have significant independent coverage in books, news, or other similar sources. Most businesses do not belong in an encyclopedia. Sorry. Alsee (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of independent coverage. This is Wikipedia's criterion for whether or not the subject qualifies for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. We call it "notability" which is not really a good term, because of course all business owners think their company is "notable"; maybe "coverage" would be a better name for it. But call it what you like, that is the requirement. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (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.