Talk:Genetex

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it provides an accurate description of a large, searched-about entity. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/abcam and https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/novus_biologicals are similar organizations, both in size and market share, who have Wikipedia pages.

This page may need editing because it lacks asserted importance, but the search volume alone for Genetex demonstrates the level of inquiry surrounding the organization. People are searching to find out what/who Genetex is.


 * you say you do not have a Conflict of Interest. I'm not convinced that you do not have a relationship with Genetex as described in our guideline. Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. If, as you claim, you do not have a Conflict of interest, can you confirm that you are not and ever were an employee of Genetex? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I retract my original claim regarding my interest in the post. I can't confirm that. I hadn't read the conflict of interest policy thoroughly enough. Is there a best way to proceed? Thanks,RootPatrickHarris
 * Yes, there is a way forward. A CoI can be managed; you may find the plain and simple conflict of interest guide guide helpful. Vexations (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

With respect to the first issue, my case for notability stems from two main points: 1. GeneTex has received plenty of notice from independent sources and is largely searched and inquired about. Its notability is demonstrated in the reliable, independent sources that reference the organization. In addition to the large number of independent sources citing GeneTex, there are over 2,000 individuals inquiring into the company every month. a. The exact search “GeneTex” receives over 1000 monthly searches into Google. This excludes other brand-oriented searches, ie Gene Tex, genetex biotech, genetex company, genetex antibodies, genetex biotechnology, who is Genetex, Genetex jobs, GeneTex founder, GeneTex CEO, etc. These terms are searched an aggregate 2,000 times per month into Google. I would be happy to show you the search data that demonstrates a global desire to learn more about the GeneTex organization.

2. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/abcam and https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/novus_biologicals are both near-identical organizations and have no notability notices. Both companies sell identical product lines, are in the same industries, have similar market shares, and more importantly, have a similar number of independent sources referencing them. The clear difference here is that these companies are both significantly larger than GeneTex, and as directly stated on the Notability page, smaller organizations can be notable. Each organization has a similar number of independent sources referencing them. GeneTex has over 163,000 academic references on Google Scholar to its antibodies. There are more than 160,000 citations in academic papers to GeneTex’ s biological reagents.


 * I suggest you read WP:N, and in particular the part about significant coverage. The number of mentions on Google scholar is meaningless. Natureium (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have. Here are the direct quotes from WP:N:


 * "Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."
 * "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."

Google scholar is an index of works, citations, authors, and publications. It is the largest collection of peer-reviewed publications in existence. Please help me understand how that wouldn’t qualify, according to Wikipedia’s definition.

You've covered smaller biotech companies. If Aderis Pharmaceuticals exists without the notice, I'm trying to find the line; which seems to be subjective and left to your discression more than anything else. The first couple pages of a GeneTex Google search include several sources affiliated with GeneTex, but I’m seeing much of the same coverage from independent media sources as the smaller companies listed on your profile. A quick search revealed:
 * https://craft.co/genetex
 * https://www.owler.com/company/genetex
 * https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/genetex
 * https://www.biospace.com/employer/528953/genetex-inc-/
 * https://scicrunch.org/resources/Antibodies/search?q=%2A&l=&facet[]=Vendor:GeneTex

Among others.

Are you honestly trying to enforce Wikipedia’s guidelines or is this a way of trying to deter financial influence on Wikipedia? I think that might be the real question here. RootPatrickHarris
 * please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's an essay, not a guideline or a policy, but it may clarify some things for you. Just because we host a lot of shitty articles on non-notable companies and haven't gotten around to fixing those doesn't mean we ought to tolerate more of them. Now, if you want to contribute positively, what you can do is make concrete suggestions for improvements to the Genetex article. Please make it as easy as possible for other editors to implement those suggestions and be prepared to take no for an answer occasionally. Arguing that Wikipedia has it wrong is not going to help you at all. 21:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against Wikipedia; quite the contrary I'm a huge fan of the organization and the people who pioneered it. I was making note that you probably don't have as honest a motive as you make out. But alright. RootPatrickHarris


 * OK, just so we're clear: My motives are pure as the driven snow. Questioning my motives isn't going to help you. If you want to contribute, you need to accept the fact that un paid editing is unwelcome in the extreme, and you need to be on your absolute best behavior. That means constructive suggestions for improving the article and REALLY dropping everything else. Vexations (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Unpaid editing is unwelcome? Too many negatives there my friend. I am dropping everything else. I believe your motives are as pure as driven snow. Good luck to you Vex.RootPatrickHarris