Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Biomolecule Corporation


 * 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.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Integrated Biomolecule Corporation

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

Notability issues. Searches on Yahoo and Google revealed little nontrivial coverage. WP:COI doesn't help either; author is. Just barely escapes an A7 or G11 in my view. Blueboy96 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Article on a non-notable company that will only ever be an advertisment.  - Sorfane 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the guy who put the COI tag on the article and pointed out its creator for indefinite blocking. But there is a big difference between the author and the article. The company is clearly notable within its field and it passes WP:RS.  If anything, this could use a rewrite to remove the COI residue. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: A company that employs ten people? The Wildcat, one of the references, is a student newspaper, while the Star isn't particularly notable either (although one of its contributors has won a pulitzer). Google turns up mainly directories (similar to LinkedIn) other than a website run by the company that gives no evidence of notability. In addition, many of the newspaper articles used as notability aren't about the company; rather than "an article about IBC" it's "an article about biology and UA, lets get some spokesperson from IBC in to do a soundbite". Ironholds 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment : remove the adverts and the article is ok - they do seem to have a core business producing a chemical - it appears to be a university spin off - hence the huge empty labs soaking up taxpayers money for little benefit...
 * Here are some links http://web.hitechpharma.com/active-ingredients.html drug tests for shark-oil producers Hi-Tech pharma shows that their products 'Stamina RX' was not spiked with viagra or cialis type products - contrary to the FDA's findings.
 * mentioned here http://www.bio-sa.org/db/filelib/BIOSAN-_3rd_Quarter_2006.doc see http://www.bio-sa.org
 * http://www.integratedbiomolecule.com/News-Articles/Top10.pdf 10 employees (in a 18,000 square foot facility)
 * They also test products for 'nothing in a pill' producers http://www.purecaps.com/aboutus.asp
 * They tested a product known as a 'nutraceutical' and found it free of harmful additive MSG http://www.enivaquality.com/msg.pdf for Eniva corporation.
 * They produce galactose-1-phosphate (not Galactose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase ?) which has any uses? (beyond 1g quantities for research).
 * Looks like the USA doesn't have to worry about it's balance of payments with the rest of the world with companies like IBC working so hard...87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments like "the huge empty labs soaking up taxpayers money for little benefit" aren't really helpful, although I appreciate the rest of the input. The issue isn't tasks they've done, it's how notable the tasks are; we're not saying "this is not a company", just that this isn't a notable company. Biotesting labs are expensive and few-and-far between (my friend Alex is actually helping construct the first such lab in Brazil, for example) so realistically such facilities are likely to be used; showing that they are gives no evidence of notability. Iron</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be so nasty to them. We are trying to explain why we can't have it on Wikipedia, not why they should die in a fire. Thanks for the research though...--mboverload @  03:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That was directed at the IP, right? <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 11:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment : Jeepers, give IBC a break.
 * First of all, you know nothing about the company’s business or finances, so no one should comment on them. It has been in business for 16 years, got a beautiful building and lots of equipment; enough said.
 * Not notable? Read the last reference describing its work in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Search “cancer vaccine tobacco integrated” and you will see it received worldwide attention. Your search also missed many other publications in scientific journals. 16 years in the biotech field; that's notable.
 * It is galactose-1-phosphate, a chemical used to test all newborns in the U.S. for a serious disease called “galactosemia.” ...--[User:rsgreen] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsgreen12 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rsgreen, cool the heck down. I don't know if the comments were directed at us or the IP (although I suspect the IP) but there's no need to get angry. Whichever idiot posted about the taxpayer money soaking and so on is obviously looking for some kind of reaction; there's no need to give it to him. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 16:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Why is it notable? You can get all the local magazines in Arizona to mention your company (of ten employees!?) but that doesn't make it worth putting in an encyclopedia.  Any national/international press coverage?  Notable issues regarding the company?  How does it play in with larger corporations?  I have found no reliable third party facts that would suggest notability. Themfromspace (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that there is no reason that this article should be deleted. It doesn't seem to violate any wikipedia rules.  In addition, the article serves as a resource for anybody researching companies in the sciences or biotech industries local to Tucson.  Does it really matter how large the company is, as long as its article serves a purpose for somebody?  The article seems purely informative to me and does not seem to intentionally try to advertise the company. 69.136.112.168 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IP please see WP:NOTABILITY. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * btw, iron isn't shouting at you caps, that's just how we type the shortcuts to the guidelines. =) --mboverload @ 05:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I landed on this page from a link on the Oro Valley, Arizona, article. I do not see what the problem is. The article is neutral, very wikified and informative. I actually know their building and it is large and beautiful. I am researching companies in the Tucson area for a job and I learned all about this company and their business in a short time. I am going to write to them....--[User:jeanie] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.89.19.10 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an encyclopedia - it contains facts. This article contains facts about a company which appears to have been doing things for some time. Since when is there a size requirement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.170.87.253 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't a size requirement - there's a notability requirement. <span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-weight:bold; #171717; font-size: 11px;"> - sorf ane


 * Comment - Subject may have marginal notability:
 * A brief mention in an interesting article
 * A patent
 * A bunch of Google scholar results

Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  17:10, 9 August 2008 (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.