Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency Therapeutics


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Frequency Therapeutics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relatively young biotech company. Has no products on the market and not even a n early stage lead development candidate. "Article" is basically a directory listing and is beset by its creator who is hammering the talk page with demands to "update" it with news about very early and incremental steps in the company's scientific development, based on a primary source (a scientific paper by people affiliated with the company) and a press release hyping it. (these steps may turn out to be correct, or not replicable and thus dead ends, or may turn out to be dead ends several years down the road....). The company is WP:TOOSOON (if ever) and not worth our effort to maintain. This is pretty much the kind of page we want to rule out by raising NCORP standards. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC) (correction Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC))


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Bad faith nomination by an editor trying to avoid a content discussion. Coverage of this company in RS is fairly extensive. Clearly meets WP:GNG. NickCT (talk)
 * I had been cutting this slack as its notability is marginal at best, but your advocacy has made that not worth while, and more so as time has gone on. Not bad faith, just unwilling to tolerate corporate cruft that is also being bludgeoned.Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. In general, WP:TOOSOON: the company has not achieved anything significant just yet, apart from raising money. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - Care to be specific? Which references exactly don't meet which WP:CORPDEPTH criteria? Your comment re "not achieved anything significant just yet" may be true, but isn't really relevant. If "hasn't achieved anything significant" was a rationale for deletion, we could probably delete a whole bunch of articles. NickCT (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closer - A couple editors seem to be stripping references from the article in what seems like an attempt to make it appear less notable. I'm going to include the stripped references here for the record. NickCT (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Plenty of notability, and even if they never achieve a product, then we'll just have another entry in the big book of vaporware. --~ ฅ(ↀωↀ&#61;) neko-channyan 17:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I've been asked to elaborate on the sources that do not meet CORPDEPTH. The sources above are exactly such sources, such as
 * "Could an injection reverse hearing loss? This Woburn startup thinks so". Boston Globe.
 * These types of articles discuss the company's hopes and aspirations. They lack intellectual independence and are insufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I do not understand your comment about "intellectual independence". The link takes us to a Boston Globe article and not corporate puffery. This is a text that mentions extensively a corporation - precisely the kind of appearance in a reliable source required by Wikipedia. I'm sure you're not suggesting we should prefer information from the company itself, since Wikipedia actively and explicitly discourages the use of primary sources, i.e. info from the subject itself. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficiently notable for an article. Alexbrn (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This article about a private corporation meets the required criteria: it has been the "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources", per citations above (plus others one can find, such as here, here, or here), which go beyond "one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source"; coverage in sources evidently extends far "above routine announcements"; and so on. This is a keeper. -The Gnome (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A run-of-the-mill medical startup, no indications of notability (but a lot of aspiration), reference contents are not intellectually independent, relies extensively on PRIMARY data, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG.  HighKing++ 23:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - a passing reference, two 'local business on the rise' articles and a web story that looks like an uncritical regurgitation of a press release. This company may become notable, but it doesn't look like they are there yet. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2018 (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.