Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anavex Life Sciences


 * 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. No persuasive arguments for keeping the article have been submitted. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Anavex Life Sciences

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. Search for sources yields only discussion on penny stock boards, press releases and other WP:SPS, and other poor sources. They have no products on the market so there are no WP:MEDRS sources about their products (which would be for an article about their products, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the nominator used only this very basic search mechanism as shown above, nominator didn't do his homework. Nominator glosses over the fact/refuses to acknowledge that (A) this company is in the research stage for its products (so it cannot have any products for sale, and that is in any case irrelevant to whether it should be listed on Wikipedia or not), (B) has presented at conferences (including ALZ's AAIC 2015), (C) is listed on the US stock market, (D) has been covered by the media, and very significantly, (E) has a trial showing promising results with probably the only drug that corrects protein folding in Alzheimer's patients. Note that the article being nominated for deletion has been very significantly cut down by User:Alexbrn, and after I attempted to restore (asking why it was cut down in the first place, since there were sources), it was reverted by User:Jytdog, claiming there were no sources (there were), then after I added *more* sources, it was again reverted by (apparently) Alexbrn's bot, and after I reverted the bot's edit, was again reverted to its current state by User:Jytdog, who accused me of edit warring, all the while initially reverting my edits/reverts without any reason that didn't lead to a WP page. See history here. --Agamemnus (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to work with you on the Talk page to find good, independent, secondary sources; all you brought is the same ones above, which are not sufficient to meet NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would recommend tone it down a notch, and work rather on beefing up the independent, quality sources of the article. Otherwise, a state a clarifying broad opinion below. Cheers. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Table / allow extended dicussion. I have no final vote on the matter, but am discussing it with others offline to better understand how such decisions should be view. My only present comment is that pharmas should not be viewed through the lens of information technology startups (which often rapidly have products, though rarely making profit on them for years). In the case of small pharma, not yet having a product does not mean that reputable sources will not exist; nor should it being a "penny stock" count against it. Brick and mortar startups have distinct attributes regarding their notability, and if this one has a single compound in the pipeline that has been presented to good press at a national meeting, then it is suitably noteworthy. My view, but again, without a firm vote, yet. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Will be adding citations to a further reading section at that article, but will otherwise make no changes (while this is being moderated). Cheers. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't "table" AfDs to the best of my knowledge. I looked for sources to show NOTABILITY and found them lacking. If you can find good sources (not crappy ones) to improve the article with, please do - there is no bar to improving an article while an AfD is ongoing. But people will look at what is there, when they arrive here, and each will decide if they want to !vote or not. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion. The fact that you reverted the bigger article with more sources (and we clearly disagree on whether they are quality sources) means that someone looking at the present cut-down article would be misled. --Agamemnus (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * couple of notes. being a penny stock is not a bad thing - what i mentioned were sources like "discussion on penny stock boards". And Agamemnus, bigger with poor sourcing =/= better in WP.  But hopefully we will get more responses here.   Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – no significant coverage, so does not meet WP:CORP. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to mention that you are one of the two who deleted large sections of the article, including posted sources.--Agamemnus (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. A video on the company's drug trial and several media articles on the company in different reputable newspapers is "not trivial or incidental coverage": it is significant coverage. --Agamemnus (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I missed it: if you can provide me with an instance of an article that has significant coverage (just tell me the strongest one), I shall reconsider. Alexbrn (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This. --Agamemnus (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So that's a short item from Yahoo! Australia on a new pill. It fails WP:MEDRS for health content, and is not directly about the company. If this is the strongest source there is, it reinforces my view that this topic fails WP:GNG. Delete. Alexbrn (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not an item from Yahoo Australia, it's a report from "7News Melbourne". That you say it's not directly about the company is facetious at best. It is directly about the company's trials, which is what the company is doing. Your citation of "it fails WP:MEDRS" is invalid for many reasons, one of them being that Leprof pointed out this is an article about a company, not about settled medicine. --Agamemnus (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I said it fails MEDRS "for health content" which it does; and as you say, it's "about the company's trials" - the company is thus incidental. Sometimes trials have articles on Wikipedia, but they need substantial coverage. See GERAC e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the article fails MEDRS. The article you cited is an article where multiple companies are involved. The article I cited is an article in favor of the company's significance. I am not in favor of making an article for a single trial. They have conducted more than one trial and will conduct more. --Agamemnus (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The company exists and its trials are confirmed by multiple sources to be real and with significant preliminary results. --Agamemnus (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same reasons as Agamemnus. JD Lambert(T 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Existence is not enough, and nobody with experience here should be making that argument. When they have an approved product, there are likely to be good sources. As far as our experience here goes, it is even possible that when they are engaged in State III trials, which are the ones whose successful completion leads to approval, there may well be enough sources. But not early stage II, where most product candidates never get any further. Articles in the popular press about them at this stage are just hype, otherwise known as advance PR, they are not encyclopedic information information. Claims for medical usefulness must follow MEDRS, even in non medical articles. This very specifically applies to the making of claims that something will treat a human disease, on the basis of in vitro studies. It's that type of material which caused us to adopt the MEDRS requirements  DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 10 August 2015 (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.