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 keep‎. Maybe next time check the sources before you nominate the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zymergen[edit]

Zymergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND. Case of WP:PROMO /WP:ADMASQ. Reference are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources listed on the article. For disclosure, I created this article--claiming WP:PROMO and WP:ADMASQ is false, there is no WP:COI. After Scope creep accused me of following them around, I am curious how they found this article. - Indefensible (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails WP:NCORP. It came up the watchlist I think, for some reason. I'll go through the first two blocks of references. scope_creep^Talk 15:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can debate NCORP, but PROMO and ADMASQ are completely false in this case. Where is the watchlist you refer to, do you mean your personal watchlist? - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I don't see that this article is promotional in style or substance. It suffers from the unfortunate funding-rounds-and-results style that a lot of poorly tended company articles do. But it's a mix of successes and failures. For notability, here are WP:THREE (only the Forbes and Motley Fool articles are cited at present):
• The Forbes article, with substantial analysis and reportage sourced from outsiders [1]
• Nusqe Spanton, Where Zymergen went wrong: a biomanufacturing perspective for synthetic biology, Manufacturing Chemist (2022). [2]
• Motley Fool, This Is Why Zymergen's IPO Was a Huge Success, substantial journalistic analysis not attributable to the company [3]

This Business Journals article would be even better if I could access it, but it's heavily paywalled; based on the visible text its analysis and criticism of the company is based on internal and external sources[4] Oblivy (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3 here, is non-rs. We will look at the references in detail later. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you say Motley Fool is non-rs? It’s not listed at WP:RSPSS. Did I miss something? Oblivy (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to have enough coverage of its fall and internal issues to meet NCORP in my opinion, a lot of which I added during the last deletion discussion. I'm not sure how it can be considered WP:PROMO at this point, it's overwhelmingly negative because the press coverage over the past few years has more or less been "Why and how it failed". BuySomeApples (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see there is a book reference there in the list of source.. Is there any book references available? Another two would sort it out. scope_creep^Talk 17:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.