Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocom (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Numerically it's a close delete but on the strength of the arguments, especially about the quality of the sources, the consensus is still for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Biocom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply promotional webhosting since the information and sources mean nothing to us in WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy, see the offered analysis last time:, , , and  which visibly show the company's influences in them. It's actually worse when, not only was this promotional advocacy, but the last deletion was as G5, so it never improved for the better, and nothing showing it will now. One of the last AfD comments said "Biocom exists. The article is factual -- 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. When Biocom is more in the news, at least we can know who it is as a player" is contrary to WP:What Wikipedia, WP:Deletion policy, WP:Crystal and WP:NPOV all establish. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Promotional article. WP:NOT. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.[4] As of 2016, Biocom represents over 800 member companies.[8] The organization runs the non-profit Biocom Institute and the Festival of Science and Engineering.[9][10]" This provides basic facts and is neutrally written. It does not violate WP:NOTADVERTISING. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: As per previous opinion and above. Light2021 (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. local trade organizations like thisd are essentially never notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all local trade organizations are notable. This one is notable. 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. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2017 (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. ..."  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."  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> 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) 03:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Delete -- a book mention with the language of "one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation" is hardly a claim to notability. If it were the largest life science association in the nation, then maybe yes, it would be worth keeping. But a regional trade group? Trade associations are rarely notable, and this one misses the mark. The article is a directory-like listing with no opportunities for improvement per available sources. Our notability guidelines specifically discourages such articles. The coverage is mostly local and / or future looking, as in "The trade group hopes to leverage the life-science industry's growing economic clout..." etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article doesn't pass WP:NOT, therefore if doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Before the promotion was removed, it violated WP:NOT via WP:PROMO.  With the promo removed it's left as a simple directory entry, violating WP:NOT via WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  Either way it's just not notable and no arguing about GNG can get around that. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the end of the day, the question has to be, is this something that a reasonable community of interested readers might legitimately want to know about, and expect to learn about in an encyclopedia. Yes, we need to protect our readers from exposure to scams and promotional material that overstates or misrepresents the significance of a subject. However, we should not use this as a reason to deny them access to NPOV information about a subject covered in reliable sources. bd2412  T 14:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * However, this would go against WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper since we're not a primary publisher of what news publishers should be publishing instead, and that's in WP:What Wikipedia is not and it completely agrees with "need to protect our readers from exposure to scams and promotional material", which is why exceptions aren't a feasible option. About the NPOV, it's actually contrary, the articles should be in every manner, NPOV, and or else our denying them is simply part of our procedural article process. SwisterTwister   talk  23:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as I agree the sourcing here is still founded in promotional press releases or notices, none of which are a negotiable exception in our policies; for example, see WP:Deletion policy's that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia and this applies here especially considering the fact this one article never improved since last AfD, that's not it now can't, but instead that improvements would've happened and that sourcing could be improved too if someone had shown it can successfully happen, especially when to remove COI contributions. Next, adding to the "sources can be improved", the range of sourcing hasn't actually ever changed so this is a another sign there's not the significant substance to show better. In this case, not only was the last AfD visited by a now-banned paid user, this was accepted from AfC when it was clear the company itself authored it. SwisterTwister   talk  23:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: when the peacock terms are stripped off we're left with a WP:NOTDIR entry.   Dr Strauss   talk   08:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I saw the PROD notice and the invitation to fix the article. I bent over and picked up the glove. Now I have a dog in the hunt, so I won't vote for my own work. What I saw was an extraordinary organization.  Instead of hosting continuing education and networking cocktail hours, Biocom is focusing on the next generation of biotechnologists in Southern California.  They partnered with Cal State LA to get a $500,000 federal grant to spend on kids.  They sponsor a kids' technology fair that draws 24,000. I don't care what the San Diego Union Tribune says.  Politifact tells me they are spending real money. The LA Business times tells me that the Department of Commerce believes in them, to the tune of a half million. It's easier to be critical than creative like Biocom is. Rhadow (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company has received coverage in significant and reliable third-party news sources.  Notability requires that the subject has received attention from third party sources, so the subject satisfies the general guidelines for notability.  I took a minute to remove some of the promotional tone from the article--I think it no longer reads like an advertisement or simple directory.   Malinaccier  ( talk ) 17:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another cry from the popcorn gallery I perceive that the value of WP derives from the synthesis of information in an article. The article is more than the sum of its parts. The founder's name might be a link to a bio. The organization's budget is pulled in from an IRS form 990. One newspaper says something interesting, even if it did take quotes from the subject, all wrapped in happy talk. Another newspaper might say something bad. The editor might even observe that trade organizations and lobbyists are the fourth branch of government in DC. THAT is an encyclopedic article -- a summary of the state of affairs for the person who can only read one thing. The fact that we draw from newspapers doesn't make WP a newspaper.


 * On the subject of trade associations, let's use a single measure, annual spending. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for firearms manufacturers, took in $36 million last year and spent $32.  It's only seven times larger than Biocom, and it's nationwide.  That makes a regional association look pretty strong, doesn't it? By contrast, the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council spent $5.5 million in 2015 -- for a whole state. Rhadow (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2017 (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: To address the newly added sources and changes in content
 * Keep - I just made some changes, and in just a few minutes found plenty of coverage. I elected to add a section about the group's advocacy efforts. They get a lot of media coverage in independent reliable sources, as Cunard has shown above - but if you go to their site you'll see they've compiled an even more extensive list of coverage, going back to February 2016.[] Rhadow - I don't think editing the article disqualifies you from voting keep, or else you'd have to disqualify those who have tagged the article from voting delete, right?  We all know tag bombers.  So this is to let the closing editor know that there's an extra keep vote that isn't showing up. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  10:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  10:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  10:38, 2 August 2017 (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.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  02:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard and Radow. CJK09 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article now seems to have adequate sourcing to establish its notability. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 18:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - not sure how folks think that a few lines denotes "significant coverage". Beyond routine and trivial mentions, no true in-depth coverage.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 04:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to pass GNG from sources showing in the footnotes, which includes significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune. We're not here to deal the swift sword of justice to self-promoters or to punish more or less gross business entities with more or less gross political ties, but rather to weigh objectively the merits of each nomination by our established standards for inclusion. This subject clears that GNG bar, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources are still not much more than recycled organisational press releases and and the text is still basically promotion for the organisation. At least three contributing accounts are likely paid editors, and one is banned. I don't know why we are thinking of rewarding them by approving what is still basically organisational wallpaper <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  06:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG, a local trade organization does not merit an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman has persuaded me with his rebuttals to this being somehow above local notability. Smallbones's summary about WP:NOT is icing on the cake. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG and Smallbones both: local trade organizations that are featured in local trade publications and other local sources are not typically accepted as reliable sources for the purpose of notability on the English Wikipedia, because the trade pubs will print virtually anything that they are told to print, making them failing in both independence and editorial oversight that we typically expect from our secondary sources. Regular local journalism is slightly better, but they do tend to be less stringent on the publication of information from local groups than we prefer for organizations. The sources that do not fall into this category also seem to be typical PR churn, which would be excluded from counting towards notability by WP:SPIP.With those consideration, this does not pass the general guideline in WP:N. As Smallbones also points out, it is impossible to be notable, even if there were sources, if the article does not pass WP:NOT. The notability guideline is abundantly clear on this: to be included a subject must pass either the general guideline or a subject guideline and not be excluded by the policy of WP:NOT. Failing both the general guideline and NOT as either promotion or a directory entry makes this a clear delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding to what Tony said, small trade pubs can have more independence issues when they have close ties to the subjects they write about. See Talk:Propane Education and Research Council for example. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - As noted by DGG, just a regional trade association. No real claim to notability.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per WP:HEY and because this squeaks by WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Of note is that the article was entirely rewritten on 16:32, 1 August 2017‎ (UTC) (diff). As such, commentary for deletion relative to the state of the article prior to this time are in reference to the previous version of the article, rather than its present state. North America1000 00:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Much of the commentary about the state of the article prior to the rewrite was also about notability, which this local trade group doesn't have in my mind and most of the earlier delete voters. The question the WP:N and CORPDEPTH and all the guidelines that surround them are essentially: if you read all the possible coverage of this subject, would you know it should be in a general purpose encyclopedia. The coverage here doesn't provide that in my view, so we shouldn't include it. On top of that, I'm not sure the rewrite really addressed the directory entry or promo concerns that well. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Closure request filed at WP:ANRFC. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  16:45, 19 August 2017 (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.