Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature's Fynd


 * 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 no consensus to delete. This could be relisted, but it is doubtful a consensus would be reached thereby when it has not in the already-extended time for this discussion. Rationales for keeping the article are not the strongest, but not entirely invalid. Pursuant to Piotrus' comment about the possibility of having an article about "fungus-based protein industry", a better course to pursue might be developing such an article and seeking to merge this there. BD2412 T 04:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nature's Fynd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar outside what the creator added. I want to note that the creator is not some COI SPI but an established and experienced editor I respect, see also his explanation of his connection to the topic at Talk: Nature%27s_Fynd. Nonetheless, most of the sources cited here don't discuss the company in-depth or at all (!). Three sources that name it in the headline are all ONEVENT about the usual start-up spamnews "company secures funding!"; is a blog by a Forbes Contributor (not an article by a Forbes journalist, don't confuse F-contributors with F-journalists), and is half-WP:INTERVIEW, sharing scope and other similarities with  niche outlets / (btw, that last outlet is so copyright paranoid it disables copying of even a single word from its article...wow). Anyway, I have serious concerns this company is not notable. Let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Page creator here. Is there a reason why all the federal grant awards are being tossed out as if they don't count?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY, plus they are just documents which are discussed in other sources. We generally don't rely on primary documentation when it comes to discussing notability of a topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The grant web pages are unacceptable PRIMARYs for subjects such as the Federal Agency, Federal SBIRs, or an individual grant award. However, Federal Agency grant awards are WP:RS regarding the work of the winning companies in the sense that they are acceptable PRIMARYs for the subject matter of the merit of the companies (to simply cite the fact that they won certain magnitude awards for certain periods), IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the United Press International publicity weeks after the March 24 Series B publicity. P.S. I concede the Wired article dated April 1, seems to have been published before the March 24 rebranding and without regard to the Series B funding publicity, but that article gave great flavor on the variety of approaches being used by the three leading fungus-based protein companies.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you link the specific sources you would like us to review? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this UPI source is a RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sources. I can't access the full text of this, but it seems to be based on a WP:INTERVIEW about "company releases/researches new product". I'd judge it good for expansions but not helpful in demonstrating notability of the company, since it is more about the product and not the company (WP:NOTINHERITED). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this Wired source is a RS on the subject of fungus-based protein suppliers. Given the short list that they produce, it is well sourced content regarding distinguishing this subject from other companies in the field.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Errr, I can't find to CTRL+F the company's name anywhere in that article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this Chicago Tribune source is far more than a rehashing of a One Event press release. It is a RS in regards to analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts. The problem with WP:ONEEVENT, is it is generally applied to bio articles. Furthermore, this one event coverage (this articles and several others) exhibits extensive editorial judgement and analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Half of it is quoted interview. The other is better, but again I have concerns if this is in-depth about a company or is it about its product? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this is a source for the origins of the company.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * company history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it? It again fails to mention the company's name ("Nature's Fynd"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here
 * (note there are two articles above from before the company changed its name. Did you see both? If you aren't aware of the name change, maybe you didn't even read the article you are suppose to be reviewing. It is mentioned in the LEAD and the main body. I will make it more prominent in the body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I still can't find th mention of Sustainable Bioproducts in the Biodesel source, as for the wired, yes, they are mentioned in a two-sentence paragraph. That's clearly not in-depth coverage. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are complaining that my research is too good. I have found the company history going back to 2009. The company was formed in late 2012, but the source you are pointing to is early 2012. Of course it does not mention a company that had not been formed yet. Maybe if I hadn't included the first three sentences in that section about the company's history from before it was formed, it wouldn't have confused you so much. Would it be helpful to delete the first three sentences of that section?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This article seems to pass WP:GNG or at least is a good example of a WP:BASIC (if BASIC can be applied to non bio articles). There is a lot of encyclopedic content from places that are WP:RS (Wired, UPI, Several federal agencies) on top of the Series B publicity which is actually surprisingly detailed with editorial contributions rather than rehashings of a press release.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the examples of best sources, but I am sorry, I still don't think this company merits a stand-alone article. What I think would be correct would be writing an article about "fungus-based protein industry" or such, where this company could be mentioned. That would be a neutral and informative way to dealing with this topic (and many like it). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The existence of sources like  and  convinces me that this passes WP:NCORP. It is silly and plain incorrect to apply WP:ONEEVENT to companies, that policy is clearly for people. SD0001 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The organization got some coverage but most of them are just fundraising news. - Ivan hersee (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2020 (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.