Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halcyon Molecular

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. Geschichte (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Halcyon Molecular

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Halcyon Molecular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page with some run-of-the-WP:MILL coverage. The startup existed for a brief time and went bankrupt without doing too much, and this page seems to only exist to name-drop the founders. It's not clear that anything more could be said about this company than the timeline this article presents. WP:ORGCRIT requires more than just the one Independent profile and coverage of financials and business actions. FalconK (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is now historical not promotional. The coverage such as The Anatomy of a Cutting-edge Start-up is quite detailed and such notability does not expire. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Just the one, though. There's not the sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources we'd hope for. FalconK (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    • And even that one is churnalism - a promotional interview masquerading as genuine journalism. Exactly the type of rubbish reference that WP:NCORP specifically excludes. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - refs (except one noted above) are routine trade notices about business transactions, not all of them are even about this company. - Bri.public (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete no SIGCOV in multiple IS RS. Independent comes close. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT.   // Timothy :: talk  01:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:20, 5 January 2021 (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.