Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zymo Research Corporation


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Zymo Research Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

No third-party WP:RS available. Seems to fail WP:CORP. Failed PROD when 1 of 2 WP:SPA editors who have contributed to this article objected. Those SPAs have a likely COI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment:There is were two reliable sources that I added but were deleted by someone else. The two sources are the journal Science and epigenie.com. I will work on putting epigenie back up. I would appreciate some suggestions on how to make it not seem to look like an advertisment, because I really am just putting it up to show credibility of the company (to meet wikipedias guidelines) and not advertisment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.73.26 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, those were links to a "Special Advertising Feature". Please see Wp:RS Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about this one: http://www.epigenie.com/Zymo_Gold.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.73.26 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a good start. We should probably move this discussion about sources to talk:Zymo Research Corporation. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for writing that post from that article, I did not read the beginning about it being an advertisement. I just was trying to help out, I will be more careful next time. I think I am going to make an account so I dont use my IP address as well. 71.177.77.82 (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - fails WP:CORP, no reliable sources to establish notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to find many sources that talk about Zymo Research due to Zymo being a smaller company. Zymo's products are notible as you can see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=zymo+research&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
 * There will be a strong source that will be used to show the company is notible once Frost & Sullivan release this years Innovation of the Year Award in Epigenetics, since Zymo Research beat out many large companies. Unfortunately, I do not have a timeline on when the press release will be available.
 * WP:CORP states:
 * "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."
 * I think the academic papers give the company notability (almost 8,000 hits on just google scholar) for being a small organization. 74.7.73.26 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Before supplying my opinion, I searched for sources. I only turned up 90 hits on Google Scholar for "Zymo Research Corporation", and all the ones I checked were trivial mention.  If I missed a scholar document (or any other document) that supplied more than trivial mention (and which wasn't advert, marketing, or other primary source material), please supply a link to a specific document, I would be happy to change my opinion if a source is found that helps establish notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Search "Zymo Research" over the full "Zymo Research Corporation" since they generally dont go by the later. There are a lot of trivial references but generally these academic papers are not product reviews, so the small things that seem trivial are pretty significant. When I searched it just now, I opened the 2nd article on the list. It was http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDG-4F6SSH6-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1140983592&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8b3b0e3cc361b3b3306dcffa45783bfe.
 * It stated: "Total RNA was isolated using the Zymo Mini RNA isolation kit, which allows for the isolation of RNA from 103 to 105 cells/sample (Zymo Research, Orange, CA)." They wanted a large amount of cells/sample, and thus chose this prodcut over the many alternatives. There are others as well. 74.7.73.26 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unexceptional as it exists now. if awards in the future (as claimed) change that we can undelete. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 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.