Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocom


 * 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 no consensus. This is borderline between delete and no consensus. While there is the two-thirds supermajority for deletion that we, in practice, often deem consensus, several of the "delete" opinions are very superficial compared to the "keep" side's, which tend to go into more detail about why they consider the sourcing appropriate. So this is a "when in doubt, don't delete" situation for me.  Sandstein  17:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Biocom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The references consist entirely of its own PR, placed in various newspapers  DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

keep the references consist of legit news coverage from reliable sources that significantly discuss the article topic. Passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG per sources already on article. -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (Comment I do not see anything from a non-localnewspaper. I do not think the LA Times, in particulr, is considered reliable except for the field of film and associated forms of entertainment.  DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: As per nom. Nothing is here to known as Encyclopedic Notable. Light2021 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't love this article, and I don't think a fatal blow will be dealt to the project if it vanishes tomorrow, but I am going to make an argument to keep it because I want to offer a position that counters a recent trend here at AFD. Or attempts to, anyway.
 * Lest anyone be in doubt, I hate spam. When I find blatant promo articles, it makes me itch. But there has been a religious crusade against spam around here lately that borders on mania. I am not talking about DGG here, nor do I wish to cast aspersions, but in the fervor to delete spam articles wherever they lie, we've started seeing editors who are using extra-sensory (and extra-policy) powers to detect PR in article sources.
 * I'm not naïve, and I know that a lot of newspaper references for this article probably came about because a PR guy/gal helped them happen. But we have no way of knowing that. All we can do is look at an article source and determine if it's reliable. And The San Diego Union Tribune and the LA Times are reliable sources. These are major daily newspapers for important cities. They employ editors and fact-checkers. That is the very definition of a reliable source around here.
 * There's a ton of garbage articles in this encyclopedia that are sourced to press releases and terrible TechCrunch posts that regurgitate press releases. This is not one of them.  A  Train talk 14:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * without specific reference to this article, my usual way for whether a news story is PR is to see if it is written in PR language, and especially the same PR language as the actual press releases. I assume all news reporters writing about products use press releases (or equivalent communications, such as booths at trade shows) to decide what to write articles about--how else could they work?  I don't consider such PR useless-- when I bought books for Princeton, I used such information also. It's what they do with it that matters. (But there are some industries which are notoriously pay to play, like Indian film, and for these, no newspaper in the area can be trusted),
 * on the general question, we could do one of three things, accept all advertising, reject all advertising, or reject only the most blatant advertising. The third criteria may sound attractive, but it gives us no clear way to decide: it involves a consensus for every article, that will necessarily depend more on impressions than on hard evidence, and experience shows the the result depends not just on the merits but on who shows up and how effectively they argue)
 * A better approach is to first remove every promotional  articles, and for new NPOV articles to be written by independent editors on the ones that are most important.The problem here is that there are insufficient people for most fields of practical life. A good example of how it can work is our articles on automobiles or airplanes, most of which are reasonably good or very good, and all of them written by volunteers who are interested.     DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on every point. My main concern is the very many AFD nominations that have appeared of late whose primary criterion is that an article is "promotional". Generally, the article being called "promotional" is a bland accounting of company details and anything even approaching what I thought a rational person's idea of advertising is. It's as though by virtue of having a Wikipedia article at all there is promotion going on. I picked on your nomination (unfairly, because I am in agreement with you 9 times out of 10 at AFD) because I figured you would discuss it thoughtfully with me, and I was right. The problem is the current vogue that every article about a company is automatically spam.
 * I agree that the system basically works here at AFD and has done for a long time. I just want to do my part (for whatever good it will do) to push back against this growing consensus that a "promotional tone" is a reason to delete an article. It's not. That's a reason to pare an article back unmercifully until you get down to a good stub and start over.  A  Train talk 17:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as the sole basis of concerns here is advertising and thst:s what this is, from the SPA advertising-only account, to the advertising company-influenced and PR information to the PR sources; none of this is actually substance and it should not have been accepted lest we start sending messages to advertisers that their adverts can be accepted with only a few PR sources. Thid is also not quite salt material yet (it was deleted as G5 in 2013) but it can be if it's restarted once again. SwisterTwister   talk  17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I'd paid someone for "advertising" and what I got back was this blandly matter-of-fact article I'd ask for my money back.  A  Train talk 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK No argument for deletion.  No policies have been identified in any !vote.  WP:SK Disruption. AfD is not a discussion forum to advance novel personal policy opinions.  WP:NPASR allows the article to be speedily renominated if a WP:DEL-REASON can be identified.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that a WP:DEL-REASON has to be "explicitly provided" - and it is already provided in the nom's statement. Doing a speedy keep and NPASR is problematic here per WP:NOTBURO. Since it has been nominated, we might as well discuss. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book notes: "Biocom (San Diego, US) In the mid '90s industry leaders in the cluster of San Diego, the third largest cluster in the world, gathered together with a strong commitment to create an association that would ensure growth and expansion opportunities and represent the industry's interests on a local, state and national level. Biocom was founded in 1995 by the merger of the Biomedical Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association. The organisation was initially created to provide advocacy for industry on local infrastructure issues having an impact on future industry growth. Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation. Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain."  The article notes: "A San Diego trade group seeking to boost the Southern California biotech industry is now setting up shop in downtown Los Angeles, a northward shift that could step on the toes of L.A.'s own homegrown biotech association. Biocom, established in San Diego in the early 1990s, plans to open its office here in June. Joe Panetta, the group's chief executive, said he sees the expansion as a chance to add more members and unite the two regions' biotech industries. 'It's an opportunity to bring together the life-science entities in Los Angeles and bring that group together with the community in San Diego,' he said. 'It will help us bring together something we've been talking about for 10 years: a unified Southern California life-sciences community that extends from Santa Barbara to across the Mexican border.' Though Biocom is a not-for-profit organization, Panetta said the group — which counts more than 750 members, including biotechs, law firms and consultants — needs to continue to grow. A bigger organization can put on better events, draw bigger investors to its members and more effectively lobby in Sacramento and on Capitol Hill, he said. ... Biocom has already been active in Los Angeles. It's one of a handful of groups working with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. on a plan to build up L.A. County's biotech industry by attracting companies to the region and helping them expand."  The article notes: "After Mycogen was acquired by Dow in 1998, Caulder recommended Panetta for the job running Biocom. ... Under Panetta's stewardship, Biocom membership has doubled, revenue has risen from $700,000 to more than $3 million and the staff has grown from six to 18. The group's geographic reach now extends north to Thousand Oaks. ... Biocom's board of directors has grown from 30 members to 50 and includes the top executives of the region's biggest and most successful companies. ..."</li> <li> The article notes: "With two San Diego football legends taking center stage, San Diego's life science trade group Biocom marked its 20th year at its annual 'Celebration of Life' dinner Thursday. Former Chargers quarterback Dan Fouts and placekicker Rolf Benirschke shared stories about their lives in football, life in general, and the need for better medical treatments. ... About 650 people attended the 'Back to the Future' themed event for the biotech/biomedical industry, held at the Hyatt Aventine in La Jolla. Biocom was formed in 1995 from the merger of two local biomedical groups. Based in San Diego, Biocom operates throughout much of Southern California and statewide; in addition to having a staff member in Washington D.C."</li> <li> The article notes: "BIOCOM, the San Diego-based trade association for life sciences and medical device companies, is pushing into Orange County. A hundred OC biotech industry executives and service providers pre-registered for a BIOCOM meeting held Wednesday in Irvine on the topic of getting medical devices to market. With roughly 560 members, BIOCOM claims to be the largest regional biotech group in the world. Only about 30 of those member companies are in Orange County. But here is where the group's greatest growth potential lies, says President Joe Panetta. ... The group plans to open an office in Orange County within six months and schedule education and networking events inside the Orange Curtain."</li> <li> The article notes: "San Diego's leading biotechnology trade group has released its first 'score card' on how California legislators voted this year on issues of concern to the industry -- an action that has some politicians crying foul. Biocom, which represents more than 200 biotech companies in San Diego, took aim at the voting records of legislators on 10 bills that deal with everything from the cloning of human stem cells to divulging secret settlements in product liability lawsuits. The trade group hopes to leverage the life-science industry's growing economic clout -- local biotech and medical device companies employ about 32,000 and spend close to $1 billion for research -- into political muscle. Last year, Biocom formed a political action committee to influence politicians and shape legislation at the state and federal level."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Biocom to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Comment and Comment and analysis - Literally advertising contents from the above:
 * Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation. Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain. (began with a "major claim" but then literally followed by the list of all services and company features available, so it's an obvious advertisement since it's only company-issued materials)
 * Now as for the next one:
 * A San Diego trade group seeking to boost the Southern California biotech industry is now setting up shop in downtown Los Angeles, a northward shift that could step on the toes of L.A.'s own homegrown biotech association....Biocom, established in San Diego in the early 1990s, plans to open its office here in June. Joe Panetta, the group's chief executive, said he sees the expansion as a chance to add more members and unite the two regions' biotech industries. (followed by company-man quote and other information from him, so it's not only non-independent but it's advertising by the company itself)
 * See the next one:
 * Under Panetta's stewardship, Biocom membership has doubled, revenue has risen from $700,000 to more than $3 million and the staff has grown from six to 18. The group's geographic reach now extends north to Thousand Oaks....Biocom's board of directors has grown from 30 members to 50 and includes the top executives of the region's biggest and most successful companies (every single sentence was clearly company advertising, because it went from company number specifics to then literally specifying who and what the board employees are! Not only non-independent but it's advertising overall, therefore unacceptable.
 * Now the next one is is literally a named mention because of a local stadium, and that's it. The next one (note it's from a local newspaper advertising its fellow local business):
 * BIOCOM, the San Diego-based trade association for life sciences and medical device companies, is pushing into Orange County. A hundred OC biotech industry executives and service providers pre-registered for a BIOCOM meeting held Wednesday in Irvine on the topic of getting medical devices to market. With roughly 560 members, BIOCOM claims to be the largest regional biotech group in the world. Only about 30 of those member companies are in Orange County. But here is where the group's greatest growth potential lies, says President Joe Panetta The group plans to open an office in Orange County within six months and schedule education and networking events inside the Orange Curtain. (every single word was the company's own because it not only went to number specifics about its partners, something only they naturally would know therefore making it non-independent, it's simply advertising it to the interests of local clients and investors.
 * Now take this last one:
 * San Diego's leading biotechnology trade group has released its first "score card"....Biocom, which represents more than 200 biotech companies in San Diego, took aim at the voting records of legislators on 10 bills that deal with everything from the cloning of human stem cells to divulging secret settlements in product liability lawsuits. (followed and finished by specifics about, once again, the company's number specifics of its business and partners)
 * Note how literally none of this was ever genuinely guaranteed of not having any self-initiated interviews of company specifics and numbers, overspecific information about the company's locations and how you can service them, etc. There there's nothing to suggest we should confide and accept them, especially when it was clearly advertising from the get-go, because no journalism efforts happened when the company supplied its own information! When it's so blatant as literally republishing company quotes and words, it's not substantial, significant (expect for the company's own mindset) or notability-causing, therefore they mean nothing for meaningful Wikipedia information. SwisterTwister   talk  05:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no identified WP:DEL-REASON. Is this supposed to be a WP:NOT argument?  Or is this supposed to be a WP:IAR argument that prefers to hide in the shadows, hoping to pass itself off as a policy argument via obfuscation?  Does the neologism "notable-causing" nine words from the end of the comment mean that this has been a notability argument?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You've !voted twice. Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've repeatedly said, blatant advertising alone is sufficient because then WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT apply; simply because there are some apparent "news" is a thin and therefore unconvincing basis considering my analysis above which explicitly showed the republished of advertising such as company and businesspeople quotes; none of that is independent or substantial. We seriously have to stop kidding ourselves with politics about "Well, sourcing is listed, why can't that keep it?" when there's blatant advertising in said sources.
 * My comments here have said what is needed to say and no one else here has actually listed meaningful sources, not from republishing of company advertising or other company-influenced materials, and no, we cannot begin to say "But news sources can base their own materials from company advertising and PR advertising as long as it's still covered as news" because that is still in fact advertising being cosmetic-filled therefore churnalism (news being overinfluenced and passed as "news" when it is in fact not, and this is so because it both allows the company to publish their own initiated and authored materials without the news media cutting into their own budgets).  SwisterTwister   talk  01:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Most notorious ways of making This Wikipedia Compromised on a highest scale of blatant promotions: Motivations are none other than Paid advertising. Such articles are violating every means possible by misusing GNC and References. Wikipedia is compromised. And can you even cite anything why on earth this article makes an Encyclopedia material. No one bother to know about this company. Not even their own industry I doubt. Only few media references are blatantly misused to create this High promotional material. Only interest is to build SEO, Online reputation and Luring customers or employee in the name of Wikipedia. As per wikipedia Such as this:


 * Here to build an encyclopedia
 * Notability means impact
 * Every snowflake is unique
 * No one really cares
 * User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ
 * User:Brianhe/What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing
 * There is no deadline
 * Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed
 * Every snowflake is unique
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Light2021 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sole purpose of this un-notable article seems to be advertising.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I think the analysis by SwisterTwister is convincing. The vast majority of the sources are redressed PR and do not satisfy WP:CORPIND (any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly) and hence cannot be used towards WP:NORG. It is also worth looking at the fact that the coverage is almost entirely local. The only somewhat OK source I found is LA Times, but that quotes the people affiliated with the organisation extensively and it not enough for WP:NORG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This bylined coverage from San Diego Union Tribune is a good example why a byline doesn't automatically make a coverage reliable and free from PR.
 * "On Tuesday, Nov. 1, Peter Schultz, president of The Scripps Research Institute, delivers a “Fireside Chat” hosted by Biocom, the San Diego-based life sciences trade organization. The event takes place from 4:30 to 7 p.m at The Scripps Research Institute Auditorium, 10620 John Jay Hopkins Dr., 92121, in La Jolla. Schultz will speak from 4:45 to 5:45 p.m., followed by a cocktail networking reception. It’s open to Biocom members, and those working in the life sciences industry except for non-member service providers.  To register and to check admission fees, go to j.mp/biocomschultz. For further information, contact Ashleigh Farver at afarver@biocom.org."
 * The quality of coverage does matter here and this is one of the reasons why local sources are problematic to use. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have retracted my earlier close. It was not done as carefully as it should have been and I think it best if someone else now closes this. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Wikipedia is not a catalog of unremarkable trade associations. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete- I agree with the analysis of SwisterTwister and Lemongirl942. This is too promotional, and the subject does not seem particularly notabale. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Vittorio Chiesa and Davide Chiaroni, professors at Polytechnic University of Milan in Italy, wrote in their Imperial College Press–published book Industrial Clusters in Biotechnology: Driving Forces, Development Processes, and Management Practices: "Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation." That two Italian professors wrote this about Biocom, which is based in San Diego, California, strongly establishes that Biocom is notable. The Wikipedia article notes: "Biocom is a trade organization focusing on the life sciences business market in California.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Biocom was founded in 1995, through the merger of the San Diego Biotechnology Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association.[8] As of 2016, Biocom represents over 800 member companies.[9] The organization runs the non-profit Biocom Institute and the Festival of Science and Engineering.[10][11]" This provides basic facts and is neutrally written. It does not violate WP:NOTADVERTISING.  Cunard (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Delete—promotional at second hand. The pile of cited sources, in the main, do not qualify as WP:RS. The "Q&A" format of some sources are PR generated. Others are "feel good″ community puff pieces with passing mention of the subject. Even within such light-weight sources, cherry-picking is apparent (see criticism from a rival industry group). In fact, the article could be seen as part of a PR struggle between rival groups. No matter how skeletal this article is, promotionaisml is the common thread in the sources. — Neonorange (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, the article could be seen as part of a PR struggle between rival groups. – there is no evidence that the article is "part of a PR struggle between rival groups". No matter how skeletal this article is, promotionaisml is the common thread in the sources. – the skeletal article is written neutrally. That is sufficient for the article not to violate WP:NOTADVERTISING. The sources are from reputable publications like the Los Angeles Times, the Imperial College Press, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Orange County Register. There is no evidence that these reputable publications are publishing PR. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There are two problems about relying  on  "Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation"  "one of the" which is a very vague term that can be applied to almostany organization" and "regional".  DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This statement was written by Vittorio Chiesa and Davide Chiaroni, professors at Polytechnic University of Milan in Italy about a San Diego, California, based association. If they did not consider it significant, they would not have included included this statement. If the Italian professors did not consider this regional organization based in another country significant, they would not have written about it in their book. That you personally feel that statement is insignificant when a reputable source does ought not mean we should follow your interpretation. We should follow the reliable sources. According to this article, Biocom in 2016 represents 800 companies in the life science industry. This is a very substantial number of companies. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Would be good to see more information. Why did the two predecessors merge?  What are categories of members? What is the benefit to its members and to society?  What are its strategic goals for the future?  Without such information, this is a fairly useless article for most would-be readers.--Rpclod (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * These are a very good list of questions. Here are my answers to your questions based on the sources: <ol><li>Why did the two predecessors merge? – From https://www.biocom.org/s/History: "Wain Fishburn: Back when both organizations were separate, Biocom Board meetings used to be myself, Jim McGraw, Peter Preuss, Bill Otterson, Ann Randolph and Bill Rastetter during cocktail hour at Tutto Mare. One of the defining moments in its history was when we decided to merge with BIC on a “dare-to-be-great” strategy that would seek to have the biotechnology industry companies directly linked to both the funding sources and supporting companies."</li><li>What are categories of members? – life sciences and medical device companies according to http://www.ocregister.com/jannorman/biocom-409660-biotech-panetta.html.</li><li><li>What is the benefit to its members and to society? – from https://books.google.com/books?id=TFzxeRLecnsC&pg=PA197: "The organisation was initially created to provide advocacy for industry on local infrastructure issues having an impact on future industry growth. ... Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain."</li><li>What are its strategic goals for the future? – from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-biocom-los-angeles-20160429-story.html: "Though Biocom is a not-for-profit organization, Panetta said the group — which counts more than 750 members, including biotechs, law firms and consultants — needs to continue to grow. A bigger organization can put on better events, draw bigger investors to its members and more effectively lobby in Sacramento and on Capitol Hill, he said. ... Biocom has already been active in Los Angeles. It's one of a handful of groups working with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. on a plan to build up L.A. County's biotech industry by attracting companies to the region and helping them expand."</li></ol> I agree that including such information would significantly improve the article. But per Editing policy, the article should not be deleted for not yet including the information. I am reluctant to spend time expanding the article with this information while it can be deleted at AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the above sources are yet more advertising / PR, such as "The organisation was initially created to provide advocacy for industry on local infrastructure issues having an impact on future industry growth... this appears to say that it's a lobby group? What are "local infrastructure issues having an impact"? This is all vague and marketing-speak.


 * "...Panetta said the group..." -- more of the org talking about itself, including "a bigger organization can put on better events". I'm not sure what value this could add to the article, as it's more marketing & PR. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also concur with you in the facts of the sources and the quotes listed are simply PR again, regardless of the publication's name, because even the LATimes is in fact a literal "What are your goals?" followed by the company's own published "about us and our company" section. SwisterTwister   talk  20:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Panetta said the group... – this answers the question Rpclod posed above, What are its strategic goals for the future? The association's "strategic goals from the future" can only be determined through statements from the association itself. There is enough material about Biocom in which Biocom is not talking about itself in the Los Angeles Times article and the other sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * but a reference that consists only of similar questions is not journalism, but a interview designed to give the subject a chance to do so PR for himself. An dit doesn't matter where it was published. The outside world is full of this, and maybe it's hopeless trying to keep an encyclopedia that is actually NPOV. But I don't think we should give up, rather we should try harder, and be very stringent in removing this sort of material. It's not useless trash intrinsically, because maybe someone does want to hear what the ceo has to say about his firm. But that's why he has a web page, and if newspapers want to  change their mission and devote themselves to promotional of all sorts of things, from commercial products to politics, hat doesn't mean we should follow them.   DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC).
 * That the Los Angeles Times included quotations from Biocom's CEO does not detract from the significant non-interview coverage about the subject in the article. It is good journalistic practice to ask for comments from the subject of the article. And this argument overlooks the other sources including a book from two Italian professors and the The San Diego Union-Tribune and the Orange County Register sources. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - not arguing about the notability of the company, but this is a purely promotional article.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . The article's text is: "Biocom is a trade organization focusing on the life sciences business market in California.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Biocom was founded in 1995, through the merger of the San Diego Biotechnology Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association.[8] As of 2016, Biocom represents over 800 member companies.[9] The organization runs the non-profit Biocom Institute and the Festival of Science and Engineering.[10][11]" I do not see how the article is promotional. Would you explain how you find it promotional so I can revise the article so it is no longer promotional? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - When you're right, you're right, the article isn't promotional. I must have had two AfD's open at the same time. However, now that I read the current version, doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 20:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reconsidering your view of the article, . What are your thoughts about the Los Angeles Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Orange County Register articles, as well as this book source from two Italian professors about this California association:<ol><li> The book notes: "Biocom (San Diego, US) In the mid '90s industry leaders in the cluster of San Diego, the third largest cluster in the world, gathered together with a strong commitment to create an association that would ensure growth and expansion opportunities and represent the industry's interests on a local, state and national level. Biocom was founded in 1995 by the merger of the Biomedical Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association. The organisation was initially created to provide advocacy for industry on local infrastructure issues having an impact on future industry growth. Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation. Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain."</li></ol> Cunard (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "...one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations" --- "one of the largest" and "regional trade association" is hardly a claim to notability. How many "largest regional associations" have the authors considered? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I said WP:CORPDEPTH, if that had been the LA Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Chicago Tribune, instead of 3 southern Cal papers, I might have *voted* the other way, but K.e.'s comments directly above have merit. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 20:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CORPDEPTH says: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The international source is the two Italian professors' book. The national or statewide source is the Los Angeles Times. The regional sources are the Orange County Register and The San Diego Union-Tribune. The book's authors are experts in their field. They have the knowledge and have done the research for their book to be able to make the statement that Biocom is "one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation". Cunard (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * weak Delete. I would like to see more extended comment added before it is kept. Pyrusca (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability. What are your thoughts about the sources presented in this AfD? Cunard (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete --- Non-notable trade association. Has no place on WP. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Strong Keep --- clearly quite a notable entity. This article should be improved, not deleted. The argument about the LA Times article being parochial / local does not stand up to a first reading of the article: if N. California NGOs / advocacy groups are noticing the size of this S. Californian syndicate, it's not a local story. Please note that Bruce V. Bigelow is a Pulitzer prize winner, which presumably would suggest that if he is writing about the relationship outre-Pacifique this might very well be something that Wikipedia should have an entry about in these days of pacts and hoses. I've fixed the refs in hopes that this page will not be deleted for spurious reasons. follow-up: caveat lector... Pulitzer Prize in 2006 as part of a b.i.g. journalistic team. Still, the references provided by Cunard above should make the case clear. If not, here's Bloomberg. SashiRolls (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:BASIC and WP:GNG mean nothing when an article only exists for advertising the company like a PR business listing therefore it's emphasized in both WP:SPAM and WP:NOT that any such advertisement is best deleted, any other excuses be damned and regardless of any potential notability. SwisterTwister   talk  22:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * comment - The broad claim made at this AFD by User:DGG, a very experienced and respected user, that they "do not think the LA Times, in particulr, is considered reliable except for the field of film and associated forms of entertainment." really deserves wider discussion.  I have created a posting on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, please discuss there: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.  Thanks. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, what the concerns listed were the fact the LA Times contents were simply advertising and otherwise trivial and unconvincing, nothing of actual substance, and also, the fact you listed a Bloomberg is simply confirming there's no genuine news, since Bloomberg simply lists whatever available financials about the company hence advertising. Also, claims that "Bruce Bigelow" is a Pulitzer winner is not relevant for this company's own notability or the fact this article is in fact an advertisement. We never keep articles of excuses for other existing articles or existing businesspeople, because that wouldn't be acknowledging this article's concerns.
 * "if N. California NGOs / advocacy groups are noticing" is not suggesting or establishing how this helps the current article either. Also, since you have commented that news in fact are helping this article and "This article should be improved", it would've helped to list some actual substantial news, not simply a company financials list, because otherwise everything else is simply showing how the article is still currently an advertisement. Simply fixing a few links in the current article is also minor cosmetics compared to the massive overhaul improvements would need. Also, as for the sources listed above, there were examined and found to be republished advertising, regardless of publication, so stating "They're news!" if not weighing the considerations since the analysis showed them to be anything but news. SwisterTwister   talk  04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. This page tells almost nothing of substance about the subject, it is referenced to advertisement publications, and it was created by a suspicious SPA for the purpose of promotion. Looks like deletion to me. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just wanted to point out that those who are crying self-promotion are IMO obfuscating the issue.  This is a trade union with over 750 members, and a political action committee that in 2004 was already active lobbying state government ("As an organization, BIOCOM took positions on 42 pieces of legislation at the state level and had a 28% success rate in getting bills that it supported signed by the Governor and an 83% success rate in defeating legislation deemed harmful to the industry.") .  In the most recent election they remained active endorsing a candidate who "was outspoken in opposing H.R. 9, a bill opposed by the industry, as it would have significantly weakened the ability to defend patents against infringement in the life science space." .  The fact that its CEO has been nominated by Gov Jerry Brown to CIRM because of his work with Mycogen, the EPA, and his testimony before the US and California Congress (in addition to founding the PAC mentioned above  suggests that maybe just maybe this powerful entity deserves a wikipedia article at least as developed as, say, the Danvers Opening in chess or the fur-bearing trout articles.  I am not arguing this article should be kept because I want to promote Biocom, but because I think people should have access information about who this PAC / Trade Union represents when they hear that they have endorsed political candidates. SashiRolls (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources prove it exists, but I'm not seeing the significant coverage that makes it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Biocom exists.  The article is factual and not promotional.  There are generally reliable sources saying talking about it to some extent.  The article doesn't currently make it sound "notable" in the sense of "exciting", like you would want to run and tell all your friends about what you just read.  But that's not the standard for wikipedia articles.  This is a decent stub/starter article about an organization, with links to sources, which can serve as a reference already and which can grow if/when the organization is salient in the world's issues.  When Biocom is more in the news, at least we can know who it is as a player.  Obvious keep, in fact. -- do  ncr  am  06:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.