Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoQuant


 * 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! 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

InfoQuant

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Possibly contested prod (was removed with no reason given.) Article reads like advertising, there is no claim of notability for this company. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been clearly revised many times to provide authoritative knowledge, not advertising. No claims are made as to the quality or fitness of purpose of specific products. Claims to notability are arguably vague at best for new academic research and related tools. infoquant is related to a niche branch of bioinformatics well known to molecular biologists, genetic diagnosticians and bio-statisticians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmithla (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If notability is vague, then it's not notable for inclusion. See Wp:Notability and WP:CORP. In addition it seems there may be the possibility that you have a conflict of interest in this company and it having an article on Wikipedia as there is a Jsmithla who posts elsewhere and is an employee of said company. Canterbury Tail   talk  17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I posted the original article and I was a consultant for infoQuant. In fact I am a consultant for several genetic biotechs. Shall I post a cooking recipe instead?  Subsequent doc revisions and clarifications were not made by me but clearly improved upon the docs notability and relvency.  The content is valid, notable and related to virtual karyotyping and copy number analysis.  Jsmithla (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to prove the company is notable though, that is the issue. You need independent non-trivial third party sources, new stories etc. Something to prove it isn't just another company that will do some small things and while successful has no meaningful impact or influence on anyone else. Wikipedia doesn't list all companies, we are not a directory but an encyclopaedia, only notable companies. This issue here isn't "no reason for deletion", it's "no reason for inclusion." Canterbury Tail   talk  19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. A private bioinformatics company developing software for array-based DNA copy number analysis isn't going to become a household name any time soon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! Wikipedia is full of small bioinformatics companies that will never be known to the general population for numerous reasons. Is anyone familiar with Strand Life Sciences, Genedata and Genomatix. All 3 are bioinformatics companies with similar backgrounds, size, financials and notability to infoQuant...and all are listed in wikipedia. While I don't agree with the argument about infoQuant's notability, I can at least understand it.  The "house hold name" argument is weak and only belongs on TMZ.com.

Jsmithla (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one is very notable, it makes plenty of case for it's notability. The other two maybe not, they should probably be looked at. And please realise that WP:Otherstuffexists is not a reason to keep. You need to show that this company is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Don't worry over other company articles, concentrate on this one and show that it is notable as per the guidelines noted above. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:03, 20 August 2009 (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.