Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schrödinger (company)

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger (company)[edit]

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

A Google News Archive search for { "Schrödinger LLC" } turns up just seven hits, including two pieces of mere local news coverage published in the Portland Business Journal. —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding quite a bit of coverage (excluding Erwin Schrodinger) of the company's operations, investments by Gates, purchase of another firm in the field, etc. It's not HUGE notability, but the coverage seems to me to be quite substantial. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those hits are unconnected with Schrödinger LLC. Some are connected with the company, but does even a single one of them include significant coverage? We normally require, IIRC, a bare minimum of two references which include significant coverage. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing "quite a bit" of significant coverage myself about Schrödinger LLC. There is one very lengthy article in the weekly Portland Business Journal (Schrödinger are HQ'd in Oregon) and that seems to be it. The only claim to any notability is in relation to Bill Gates' investment and the other coverage is tiny, or about Gates. WP:NCORP requires some evidence of general news coverage and I'm not seeing any of that at all. Sionk (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in part for the reasons given by Candleabracadabra, but also because its products are widely used in the pharmaceutical industry and by drug design scientists both in industry and academia. There must be hundreds of links to their products in the scientific literature. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even the sources you can access via the nominator's link show minimal notability. Click through the links and you see one PBJ "story" is one of their non-stories, but it provided a link to the Puget Sound Biz Journal story which then provides a link to the WSJ story. I'm pretty sure the WSJ is considered a national source, and both the PBJ and Seattle version are more of a regional source, not local (local is truly meant to be the small town newspaper, not publications covering major metro areas). Throw in the other sources from Candleabracadabra, plus items such as the Seattle PI, The Oregonian, offline sources (Bell, J. (2010). Gates bets $10M on Schrödinger. Oregon Business Magazine, 33(6), 46.), more paywall sources (Exploring medicine's molecular frontiers: These companies could make a difference to human health and Oregon's economy. Suzanne Stevens. Oregon Business. 25.2 (Feb. 2002) p25 - 2 paragraphs on the company) and it passes the GNG bar. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Wall Street Journal is national.
I just investigated and discovered that a newspaper covering a major metropolitan area is indeed "regional". I have now edited WP:CORP to reflect this. (Diff.) Thank you for pointing it out to me.
The Seattle PI article you mention is just a routine funding announcement and fails SIGCOV. The Oregonian article is also a funding announcement; I don't think it's enough to base a Wikipedia article off of. Do there exist two sources which you yourself have viewed and which include SIGCOV of Schrödinger?

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while you may not consider those articles to be signifcant coverage because you consider them to be "a routine funding announcement", I do. Did it get more press because of the investor? Yep, sure did. Does that matter? No it does not. The fact is, the press took note of the company because of Billy's money, but they still took note (and we are talking about mainstream press, not some online only outlet with three readers dedicated to investments in this field). Since the press took note, they are notable (a derivative of note). Similar to how criminals become notable, not because they did anything great, it's just the press took note of them. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the RS coverage discussed above, there is also this Nature.com column: [1] Notability is established for this company.Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the RS found above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:25, 13 December 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.