Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TearSolutions


 * 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 two 'maintain' arguments do not discuss whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. After putting those aside, there is a clear consensus to delete (I did notice that Ekkuto made both a 'maintain' and 'keep' argument). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

TearSolutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company by COI editor. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I PRODed this, not realising it had already been done before. My rationale was: "Non-notable company. It has only received coverage from the University of Virginia, which is not independent of the subject." SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  19:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  19:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete unable to find secondary sources regarding subject. The references currently used are either press releases or from someone directly related to the company. Elaenia (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maintain The company is making a lot of great progress using the findings from extensive research into Lacratin to develop treatments for dry eye. I would very much like to follow it's progress and have the information accessible here. It has been able to raise over $3 million so I would very much consider it a notable company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekkuto (talk • contribs) — Ekkuto (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It exists and makes money is not a policy-based argument. Doesn't show it passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/TearSolutions:
 * Delete - per GNG.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Maintain: In addition to a diverse news sources, I found info about this sbir.gov database indicating its innovative work in an underserved area of biopharma. Would like to keep tabs on its important advances Keepnaet (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as meeting the WP:GNG. It has received coverage from sources that both reliable and independent such as the Journal of Biological Chemistry to cover the innovation around lacratin and from Bloomberg Business and Crunchbase to cover the business and fund raising side of TearSolutions. The form of dry eye targeted by the company affects at least 7% of world population with no effective treatment at the moment. Lacratin is a novel innovation and Tearsolutions is an early stage company so I hope that we do not penalize the idea and business for having these qualities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekkuto (talk)


 * Have mentioned our three brand new accounts at SPI here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably should have mentioned Sockpuppet investigations/Ekkuto before (Ekkuto is the oldest account). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2016 (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.