Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic gene therapy


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Synthetic gene therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable product, based on a single research paper by the company mentioned in the article. Even if notable, it would belong in Gene therapy or Vectors in gene therapy. This would not be a novel type of gene therapy, just a new technique. Pontificalibus (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This looks a trojan horse to publicize the cited study, and thereby promote the company's scheme.  As the nominator says, there is nothing novel or special about using synthetic genes for gene therapy, and likewise, the cited study did no therapy, just proof-of-concept studies in cell culture.  This is (yet another) 'way to build a better mousetrap', which biotech firms are coming up with routinely and most of which never end up amounting to anything.  There is no there there. Agricolae (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Delete the second nom page, same reason. Agricolae (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related page because it was created by the same person and is as non-notable and as much of an advertisement as the page originally nominated:




 * so, delete both. -- Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. Well at least they didn't say "stem cells". Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2017 (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.