Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Biosciences


 * 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 speedy delete (G12)  not once, but twice by Cenarium and NawlinWiki, respectively. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk ) 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Biosciences

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

Company's main product already covered by unassessed article Single Molecule Real Time Sequencing which it is a smaller but substantial reiteration of; notability is one concern Article is also an unreferenced orphan requiring cleanup. Synchronism (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Melia Nymph (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as I don't see how this company is non-notable. Also, if the technology the company has pioneered is worthy of it's own article, why isn't the company itself? I'm still trying to decide if I'm a deletionist or inclusionist, but will lean inclusionistically until I can figure out which I am, hence this position. If you expound upon your nom with respect to notability, I may reconsider, though, since I tend to lean deletionistically when it comes to notability. (Did I just invent some words? :P) ~ Pip 2  andahalf  04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the company is more notable. Really it's the chicken or the egg.  But it seems to me that the sequencing method, at least for now, is more notable than its developers (who I suspect are not its only users), and that both can be covered by one article- in this case simply the larger one. A new PB could still be made, of course, I'd hope it is not simply another verbatim copy  of Single Molecule Real Time Sequencing.Synchronism (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good point. I like the chicken or the egg analogy for this. I see what you're saying regarding the technology vs the company, and I think I'll change my vote, especially if the only substantial content that the company's article could gain would be redundant in the Single Molecule Real Time Sequencing article, as you linked.


 * Delete, changed from above. ~ Pip 2  andahalf  05:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  speedy Start-up company = not notable. http://www.pacificbiosciences.com/index.php?q=about User below me beat me to it! :)  ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as copyvio  of their about page and so marked. When spam like this shows up, its the first  thing to check' I'll let another admin confirm and delete this. There might or might not be an article  to be written about them, depending upon whether they have a product or are merely planning to have one. The company was in fact founded by Stephen Turner , who was in fact one of the people involved in developing the technology, so it might well be notable. I havent checked his actual role in the work, though & the site does not claim him to be the inventor.  The sequencing method is very notable, butt hat doesn't carry over to everyone involved with it. DGG (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G12) per DGG. Copy-and-paste from the abovementioned web page, which is blatant copyright infringement. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:04, 7 November 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.