Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TransMolecular


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus, despite comments coming in after the last relist, that was the third relist and it's time to close this discussion. No penalty for a future nomination although not in the near future, please. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

TransMolecular

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Very obscure, fails WP:SIRS, lacks significant coverage DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine,  and Alabama. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There was a mention of controversies about protests against the company which I felt could help establish its notability, but when I searched for them, there was just one fleeting reference that TransMolecular had done business some time in 2005 with another company that was actually being targeted.  Instead, I found plenty of independent references to the work of the company including an article in Fortune Magazine in 2003 that called it one of 14 "most exciting, innovative companies in the nation".  Other articles I found seem to identify the company as a collaboration with researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.   In any case, the company no longer exists after it cashed out and sold its assets to a Japanese pharmaceutical manufacturer in 2011, but article is no longer unreferenced.   There are other references to successes during clinical trials of the company's experimental products that I have not attempted to integrate into the article.  If there were actually protests against the company (I doubt it) then that could also be added back to the article. The company's archived website has an "in the news" page that lists 18 additional independent references that establish notability (I have not looked into any of those).  RecycledPixels (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. It would really help to get an additional review of the sources brought into this discussion to determine whether they would address the nomination statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per RecycledPixels. Apears to be very notable. There is some coverage in Bloomberg, WSJ, Wired, NY Times Slate, Courant, Crains, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, The Pantagraph, Gizmado, Monga Bay. Even the death of its CEO received coverage. 72.172.120.125 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Delete: All of the sources listed in the archived news page, and posted by the last user, that I could access appeared to be trivial mentions, a sentence or so in a longer article about something else (except WSJ and NYT, which I couldn't access). Unless those prove to be substantial coverage, I don't think any of the cited sources amount to WP:SIGCOV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which ones were you unable to access? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Eisai_(company): the current target includes one sentence about Morphotek, which bought TransMolecular. This can be expanded to a paragraph, if sources permit. There are indeed many RS that mention the company, but as others pointed out, coverage is mostly limited to the products, not the company. And seeing as the company is now gone, new coverage is unlikely to appear. Owen&times;  &#9742;  23:18, 13 January 2024 (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.