Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeona Therapeutics


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Abeona Therapeutics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsurprisingly my searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's basically nothing actually convincing to where I would've PRODed too. This basically has noticeably not changed since starting in 2008 and everything simply suggests it cannot actually be amply improved. SwisterTwister  talk  07:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - weak There do seem to be plenty of secondary references, but yes there does not seem to be a lot to easily add to the article, although if someone had the time and interest I also suspect that there will be secondary references to notable drug developments by this company if the research areas mentioned came to fruition and while not universally notable would be rather notable in that area of medicine and health care. I have now deorphaned the article, so this might mean more people find it, and maybe WP:EVENTUAL, so keep for now.   Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * delete dearth of independent sources; exists to promote the company (see history) Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I did notice the earlier SPA too, but does it matter if the article can potentially stand in its own right anyway ? Surely the parentage of an article does not tarnish the article itself ?    Eno Lirpa (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a growing consensus that articles with marginal notability created for promotional purposes get tipped toward non-notability by the WP:PROMO policy violation. We don't exist for that. And of course if it were clearly notable we wouldn't be in this discussion at all and then the origins would not be relevant. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A company that is trying to produce new drugs but has not yet produced any cannot possibly be `notable. They should post[pone their efforts at publicity until such time as them have something to publicize. Local business journals will publicize anything in their area, and are indiscriminate soures and cannot be used for notability The notability isn't even borderline, it's zero.   DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear lack of reliable sources, and exists only to promote the company. Tom29739 [ talk ] 18:16, 21 June 2016 (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.