Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Signaling Technology


 * 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Cell Signaling Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:GNG. Has not received significant coverage outside of press releases and routine announcements. Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Grapefruit17 (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This is a large biotech company and there are a lot of mentions online. What kind of coverage are you looking for? Natureium (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I don't understand why there are links to the company's website for different languages/countries when there only needs to be a link to the main version (especially since this is English Wikipedia), I do think the article is well written, meets most if not all WP:N, and has good references. I don't feel like there is a particular need for this article but it's here and there could be more information put online about this topic in the future.
 * Keep. This article still have notability when I using an google search, I don't think it should be deleted in potentially. But some of the reference sources are link rot, need to be refill it.  S A 1 3 B r o  (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Natureium. Also, Google Scholar shows there are innumerable research papers where this company's products are specifically cited as a part of the research methods. — Gpc62 (talk) 05:40, 30 November 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.