Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambrian Biopharma


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Cambrian Biopharma

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. PR, Press-releases. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH.  scope_creep Talk  20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine,  and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Article is far too detailed about funding and uses passing mentions but Bloomberg piece is significant coverage. Would like to see more like that but see potential. Slywriter (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Slywriter the Bloomberg piece is an interview with the CEO of the subject company, which obviously fails WP:SIRS as it cannot be independent from the subject. Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Brain freeze there and for some reason watching an interview was not triggering that it was an interview. Slywriter (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. All sources appear to fail WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:SIRS. Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 08:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All coverage is significant and all the sources are independent. It's a literal reading of the policy. Media coverage covers the business, its history and of course the funding. To submit the popular "three best sources" source review, Fierce Biotech, Crain's and Baltimore Business Journal are all well-known, reliable sources. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fierce Biotech is based entirely on this PR announcement, fails ORGIND as it contains no "Independent Content". Crain's fails for the same reason as it is a summary of the announcement. BizJournals is a mere mention-in-passing because the article is actually about a different company (announcement), Vita Therapeutics, so fails CORPDEPTH. If you still believe these are good, please provide guideline-based reasoning below. For the first two, where's the "Independent Content" as per ORGIND and for the third, the in-depth information about the company as per CORPDEPTH?  HighKing++ 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. In regards to the sources presented above, the first link that TechnoTalk provided does not work because of the way it was formatted. I had to do some digging and found that this is the correct URL. This source Fierce Biotech is an extremely niche source that specifically covers BioTech-specific industry product and finance information. Per WP:AUD, such coverage does not contribute to notability in and of itself. This is based off of this press release, therefore does not contribute to notability as it is not an independent source. Finally we have this, which is absolutely trivial coverage. The article's subject is mentioned only once in passing and absolutely fails both WP:GNG's definition of significant coverage as well as the criteria laid out at WP:SIRS. So we have a niche source, a copy of a press release, and a trivial mention. That doesn't meet the threshold for notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. I did review the other sources in the article itself and online, and there's plenty of interviews and more trivial mentions and such, but nothing that would contribute to the notability of the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP per the analysis by Aoidh.4meter4 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others - this is garden variety corpspam with nothing in the way of truly independent sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - All the sources I'm seeing appear to be independent - I'm not seeing corpspam - what am I missing? I just Googled them and found another source, which I added. The company already launched another successful public company. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  00:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The source you added is the same kind of biotech financing specific source which is hyper-niche coverage that, per WP:AUD, "is not an indication of notability." Further it is based solely off of this press release, which makes it textbook churnalism and fails the independent sources criteria at WP:ORGIND. Even your own example is not an independent source, and launching another company is not an indication of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NCORP, and WP:ORGCRIT, which states: The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. My search online for sources has found many press releases and material that is substantially based on such press releases, which is dependent coverage that cannot be used to support notability per WP:ORGIND. Similarly, the Axios source in the article discusses the industry generally and when Cambrian Biopharma is mentioned, it is primarily "says James Peyer, the CEO of the anti-aging startup Cambrian Biopharma", "says Peyer", "says Peyer"; the article also includes quotes from other CEOs promoting their companies. The Wikipedia article also includes substantial content about funding, and per WP:ORGDEPTH, a capital transaction, such as raised capital is an example of trivial coverage, along with other standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage that are used to develop this article. This company was founded in 2019, and it seems to be WP:TOOSOON to find much more than its own promotional efforts and routine coverage of its development at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company which goes beyond "coverage" in "reliable sources". Since the topic is a company/organization, we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of "coverage" is irrelevant. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (so that's at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". With the reliance on funding announcements in mind, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company - mainly funding announcements which are replicated in dozens of other "sources" containing versions of the exact same information and quotes, mentions-in-passing, etc. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:53, 6 July 2022 (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.