Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimeric cytoplasmic capping-prone phage polymerase expression system


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Chimeric cytoplasmic capping-prone phage polymerase expression system

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is similar to Articles for deletion/Prosetta and may be a repeat nomination of Articles_for_deletion/Synthetic_gene_therapy, which was deleted. This article is about a product/service developed by Eukarÿs, a French biotechnology company. The company only has one product, which is the subject of this article. Few secondary sources exist about this, and the ones I've found are not independent. The article appears to be written by someone affiliated with Inserm. Some people at Inserm were involved in developing/researching the C3P3 system, and the company's scientific advisory board has someone who was the CEO of Inserm, so this article may not have been independently written. The author has not written anything else but did create the redirect C3P3, which was previously deleted as a result of the aforementioned deletion nomination. Velayinosu (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

,, , , and , you each participated in the previous deletion nomination, so you may want to comment here. Velayinosu (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - same product marketing under a new name, with nothing added to demonstrate notability overlooked in original process. Of the 9 referenced sources, 7 of them are directly attributable to the same person, either in his role as research scientist whose team developed the approach or as CEO of the company marketing it. Of the other two, one is foundational, predating the technique's development by a quarter century. The other is an abstract or agenda of a scientific meeting I have been unable to find online, but as it predates the formal publication of the approach by three years (and apparently predates them coming up with their cutesy name for it), it can only be a presentation by the developer (which wouldn't be WP:RS even were it independent). Notability requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and we appear to have no single instance of that here. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2021 (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.