Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solynta

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. KaisaL (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solynta

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

The notability of the company is not established. Definite SPA/COI issues. This may also be a WP:NOTPROMO or WP:TOOSOON issue. They're doing research, and giving interviews and such, but there doesn't appear to be a product out in agricultural use. There are also problems with the sources. The first source, "Towards F1" is a primary paper where half the research team are Solynta's management, so it isn't independent if only for that reason, and if science RS is similar to WP:MEDRS, it's not acceptable. The second paper is about potatoes, and Solynta isn't mentioned in the abstract, though the technique is; therefore the connection made is WP:SYNTH, or it's possible Solynta is one of several companies doing this - there's no context for their business environment, which makes determining notability difficult. The Icon Award is for "innovative projects" (not necessarily, complete, viable, etc.), and there were four winners that year. Of the HighBeam sources quoted for notability in the DEPROD, the first is trivial, the second is a press release, and the third is another copy of the 2014 Icon Award article as a government press release. Those, by the way, are the only sources in Highbeam for this company. Article written by SPA User:Hkruyt, very likely Hein Kruyt, Managing Director of the firm. MSJapan (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability given besides being a "National Icon Laureate", which I can't find any reference to, so still fails WP:GNG. Even their website doesn't claim they've done anything. Maybe they will get sales and write-ups in the future, but there's nothing now. And, yeah, poor sources and COI. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for news sources, I see two articles in PotatoPro magazine, to which I reply "there's a magazine called PotatoPro?" I think the problems here are several. Although we have a general prohibition on using YouTube sources as a reliable source, there is no such prohibtion on tuber sources. However, coverage in the tuber press seems very weak, let alone the press not read by the tuber-growing community. Perhaps the sources are there and have been all mashed up and/or fried by the search engines. Who knows? It's quite obvious though that this is a non-notable tuber company, and any way you want to slide, mash or fry it, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP (but may be nonethless tasty).HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel entirely julienned by your response. MSJapan (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That chips away any remaining notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - MSJapan makes a good case for delete here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my examinations have still found nothing actually convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find independent, in depth, reliable sources for this product; hence it fails notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Just FYI, the scientific notability guidelines are usually aligned with general notability guidelines. The main practical difference is that secondary content embedded within in primary sources is often considered reliable in general scientific notability discussions, but MEDRS is dubious about this and prefers dedicated secondary sources such as review papers, reliable books, etc. --Mark viking (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2016 (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.