Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epigenomics AG

: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. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

=[[Epigenomics AG]]=

:{{la|Epigenomics AG}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Epigenomics AG}})

Non-notable biotech firm. All references used in article do not at all involve the subject and has been authored by an account with no edits outside of the page ({{user|Cf DNA}}) who has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_February_22&diff=prev&oldid=415349852 an admitted conflict of interest]. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 02:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep May well need a good cleanup for POV, but passes WP:ORG with coverage by secondary, verifiable sources at [http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=ECX:GR] and [http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=ECXG.DE], both which have different texts. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Existing isn't a pre-requisite for notability, and I don't think that stock tracking counts as reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I do believe Bloomberg to be generally reliable, yes. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep: per Jay. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So we're keeping an article written by an employee?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It may need a cleanup, but just because it might have been written by an employee is not necessarily a reason to delete it. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 07:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that it's not a valid article on a notable subject. It just means that we have to be more careful. DS (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Obviously the stock sites are reliable sources and they would be great if notability were independantly established, but they dont give 'significant coverage' but rather just blurbs for traders. I'd assume Bloomberg has similar for every public traded company, but is every plc notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob House 884 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Confused As the author of this article, I would like some guidance. I saw two reasons posted for deletion. 1) Conflict of interest. It would seem that affiliation in and of itself would not be the sole reason to discredit an entry. As the author I voluntarily disclosed in my author profile that I was an employee of the company to make it clear. When I look at many other profiles I don't see this type of disclosure. I also tried to write an objective description of the company and used articles describing several other companies as comparators. 2) Non-notability - how is this defined? The company has been publicly traded on the Frankfurt Exchange since 2006, is working in the critical area of molecular diagnostics, has introduced a new class of products for colon cancer and lung cancer, and company scientists have published important work in the peer reviewed scientific literature. All of this is verifiable.
As an aside, I presume the conflict of interest part is why other edits I made to information about genes has also been removed - even though my comments were verified by scientific publications. Is this the norm for wikipedia - that affiliation precludes me from providing information even when my comments are fully verifiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf DNA (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:Something can exist for several years, but it might not be notable per our standards.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep, weakly. Being traded on stock markets and listed on stock sites does not necessarily confirm notability. But the publication of methods apparently invented by this business in medical journals would appear to give this business at least potential historical and technical significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 14 March 2011 (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.