Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zymergen


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Zymergen

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND. Case of WP:PROMO /WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - this company is of sufficient notability and ref coverage to deserve at least a stub; deleting would be un-encyclopedic. There is a previous article on the Japanese wiki that was used for starting material. - Indefensible (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * An entity having a page in a different language is not a gaurantee for it having an English wikipedia page. -Hatchens (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is there is at least some level of encyclopedic international coverage already to support the argument for notability. The article is not promotional or advertising per your nomination, it should be kept. - Indefensible (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep There are several Forbes staff, CNBC, Bloomberg, San Francisco Business Journal, and Barron's articles about the company. It looks like the company had a dramatic rise and fall, not unlike Theranos. The page only has 2 of these sources currently, and no information about its issues over the past year. I'm going to edit it to make some improvements. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The CNBC source and the two bloomberg sources, at least, are routine "line goes up, line goes down" coverage that's useful for stock trading but doesn't place the company in any particular historical context. FalconK (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Excellent sources were mentioned by BuySomeApples that clearly proves notability. Alimovvarsu (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing written about this company or its failure outside of the business press, with the vast bulk of coverage in reliable sources being routine stock trading coverage.  Nowhere near the depth of coverage as the collapse of a company like Theranos.  It's not even comparable; Zymergen has little said about it anywhere other than analyst notes.  FalconK (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources from business press are what should be expected for a business article. That is still enough to qualify for encyclopedic coverage. What sort of coverage do you expect for a business otherwise? - Indefensible (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2022 (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.