Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10x Genomics

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10x Genomics

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

No indication of notability; the given sources do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and largely do not cover the company itself in any appreciable detail. Those that do are press releases, user-submitted content without editorial oversight, and a business directory, not reliable third-party sources. I prodded the article a few days ago; the subsequent changes do not address the basic problems. Huon (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as article author): clearly I'd prefer that this article not be deleted, the 10x technology has been used in a number of studies, but I see your point that the page is about the company itself. I presume these links [1] [2] [3] have the same issues, before I edit the article?? Amkilpatrick (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, proving the notability of these young but active companies is always difficult. The Forbes article is a substantial coverage from a highly reputable source. BusinessWire can be relied on in its statement that the company is a "key player" in the (major) sequencing market. The 4 papers in Nature journals that mention the company demonstrate that its products are taken seriously by top scientists. These sources together certainly bring 10x Genomics to the threshold of notability. There seems to be a substantial business article at GenomeWeb (verifiable if anyone feels like registering for a free trial). There is a useful and well-written article on what seems to be an independent expert's blog at CoreGenomics. The FierceBiotech article is an additional substantial piece of business coverage by an independent journalist. Overall, the company is covered by a wide variety of business, scientific, and technical articles to a good depth. I'd say the company passes the GNG with multiple, reliable, substantial, and independent coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Souring is mostly directory listins (count nothing for notability), WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions.

BusinessWire : press release distribution service. Originates from the company.
Forbes : this is not the editorial arm, but the blogging side, as as forbes.com/sites/ which is user submitted. Deos not count for notability.
genomweb.com is a news site, but as a highly specialised one, it does not meet WP:AUD
Etc.

In general, WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. Promotionalism-only on an early-stage company. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the blog of a reputable organisation like Forbes is a serious, carefully thought out and reliable source, consistent with Wikipedia policy. The fear about other kinds of blog is a different matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

forbes.com/sites/ is not an editorial blog; it's a user-submitted area for (generally promotional) content from (often affiliated) contributors. See for example this WP:RSN discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#Forbes/Forbes.com. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reason why proving the notability is hard of these companies is because they aren't generally notable. Per K.e. coffman Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:39, 9 March 2018 (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.