Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunesis Pharmaceuticals


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sunesis Pharmaceuticals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP. Looking at ghits, especially the news section, we see that most of the items listed as PR pieces, press release content and churnalism. If this company has failed to generate significant coverage in the past 20 years, we can assume that they are non notable. 2Joules (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unstruck nomination text, per WP:G5, since AfD initiated before sock block. -The Gnome (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , FreeatlastChitchat was blocked by NeilN on 6 March 2018, long before this page was created. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we not going with the date the nominator ("2Joules") was blocked? Moreover, if we strike off the nominator's whole text, then this means the AfD would be null and void and should be closed down immediately. -The Gnome (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose &mdash; I am one of the editors who has contributed to the article. Of the 7 citations currently supporting the article, only one is a press release / self-published; the remaining 6 are from established news outlets, mostly newspapers, with one being from Science Translational Medicine. GHits are not a measure of notability any longer, considering the vast content in Internet Archive and Newspapers.com, neither of which are touched by Google. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ User:Ceyockey This mention in newspapers.com is just a trivial passing mention, so is this one. Then there are the quarterly financial reports used as sources. The source you mention from Science Translational Medicine is a blog. They explicitly state on the top that the blog is in no way affiliated with the magazine and does not have any peer review etc. They call it editorially independent. So it is not part of the magazine. With such unreliable sourcing, this should have been deleted ages ago. 2Joules (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:2Joules &mdash; As with previous articles I've contributed to and which were ultimately deleted, I won't oppose if the consensus is delete. In regard to the blog posting, blog postings by notable individuals (i.e. who have articles on Wikipedia) are certainly reliable sources; the author just had not been linked before, now linked.  Trivial mentions - I'll have to review these again to see if your evaluation aligns with my interpretation. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete this promotional and poorly sourced text trying to pass as an article. Subject fails WP:NCORP, let's just say. -The Gnome (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ User:CAPTAIN RAJU &mdash; I REALLY take issue with this being described as "promotional". There is no content which attempts to aggrandize or hype the firm. -- User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I presume, Ceyockey, you're addressing me rather than User:CAPTAIN RAJU. Briefly, the label "promotional" is based on the use of weaselly words and phrases in the contested article such as: "focused on"; "this new opportunity"; "tethering", without explanation (the source cited does not explain, while the DCC article itself is unsatisfactory, so the user is left staring at just an impressive sounding word); etc. Plus, this being an article indirectly about scientific subjects (chemistry, biology), we need explanations for the terms used, otherwise, again, the user is left just staring at impressive wordage. For example, "...helping leukemia patients with a C481S mutation". What's "C4815"? And what it means to be a mutation of it? Admittedly, the sum does not constitute something highly promotional, but when it comes to articles about corporations, we must be vigilant. In any case, the bigger problem here is lack of notability; weasels can be run out. -The Gnome (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry for the mis-direction, @The Gnome. I don't think I added any of the promotional-signals, and all of these can be addressed.  The C4815 thing ... that bothered me too; drugs are now targeting specific mutations, but that info doesn't belong in the company article, but in the drug article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, the latter in particular. The sources cited by the article are all either trivial mentions, press releases, minor list articles (such as the Wisconsin State Journal citation), etc. None these pass the newly-strengthened NCORP guideline for notability or CORPDEPTH. Furthermore, neither the sources cited nor the article itself make a credible claim to significance for the company, which seems to be a run-of-the-mill pharmaceutical company with doubtful encyclopedic notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; @User:SamHolt6 noted the WP:CORPDEPTH, which I'd not been familiar with prior to this; it provides a guide to source evaluation, which did not exist before. As I've been defending the article, I thought it incumbent upon me to do the WP:CORPDEPTH source analysis, which appears below.  I'd be interested in how you feel my interpretation of sources matches your interpretations.  I do agree that "2" as the count of supporting pass citations is insufficient to support a keep for the current state of the article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment : The way I see it, Ceyockey, your evaluation above demonstrates indeed lack of sources about the contested subject. -The Gnome (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; glad I didn't make any major mistakes in the review ... first time I've used this method, User:The Gnome. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing self published press releases, announcements, and passing mentions. Blue Riband► 17:56, 14 July 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.