Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BiondVax


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

BiondVax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page as it stands is spam, based almost entirely on very low quality SPS, press releases, crappy stock chasing blogs, etc. Makes claims about their lead vaccine based on non-MEDRS refs that are not fully independent of the company. This is not a WP article. It is not clear to me if this meets NCORP at all, but this page is nothing even approaching a WP article. Delete per TNT/PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the Times of Israel is a RS. Bloomberg and NASDAQ are reliable sources. Industry specific media are great sources. Even Seeking Alpha has a good reputation for coverage of companies as a leading investment site. See the article talk for more analysis. This is not a medical article subject to WP:MEDRS it's a profile of a WP:LISTED company that works in medical research. Evidently no source and no information is acceptable to Jytdog around this company. For topics I'm way more interested in companies that develop stuff, make stuff, that people's retirement accounts are invested in, that build buildings and create jobs. In this case, their flu vaccine could save countless lives if it continues to prove out. That's a heck of a lot more encyclopedic and notable than video game charactors and pageant queens and obscure olympic athletes. I don't understand where the blind hostility is coming from on this topic. There are thousands of less notable topics out there to delete. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a genuinely interesting product, see for example published in the news section of Nature, which quotes Vincent Racaniello, an independent influenza expert: "in theory, this combination or proteins should be universal, because every strain of flu would have them." There will probably be hundreds more such sources including material enough to satisfy MEDRS. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't read this review but Peter Palese, an influenza luminary, writing in Annual Review of Medicine clearly satisfies MEDRS; it cites the 2012 paper by Atsmon et al. in J Clin Immunol. As does another review by Palese for Nature Reviews Drug Discovery . Some of the material around is company puffery, but Palese & Racaniello are not part of that. There's also an interview (I know I know) with Tamar Ben-Yedidia in Expert Review of Vaccines and another piece by Ben-Yedidia in Human Vaccines . These are proper academic journals, not republishers of press releases. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have notified WikiProject Viruses. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Between the financial disclosure and analyst coverage from being listing on Tel Aviv Stock Exchange for years, NASDAQ listed for two years, the patents across much of the world, clinical trials amd studies and recently stories about them building a factory and getting grants there is a lot of available material. This is not some corner store.  There is a reason WP:LISTED says nearly every public company is notable. Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hand wavy theoretical crap. This page is industrial waste dumped into WP.  Shovel the shit out.  If somebody wants to take time to see if they can write an encyclopedia article that would be great.  Not this. This needs to go. And both of you, we are not here to do WP:CRYSTALBALL hype for anybody.  Most drugs fail. We do not hype drugs in development. That is not what we do here. And the ref you cited is not a MEDRS source.   The claims about what their drugs does are absolutely subject to MEDRS.  MEDRS developed to stop people hyping snake oil to parents of autistic kids in our articles.  It is NOT OK.  Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Whilst the company in question may have had representatives edit this page, and it does bear some COI hallmarks (primary sourcing from corporate pages/journals for example), its apparent notability and lasting influence would suggest that cleanup rather than deletion is the preferable recommendation here. Although as a relatively timid user, having read Jytdog's comments above, I may possibly have been intimidated into suggesting that expert editors consider whether or not there is a parent article, such as a relevant field of research, into which notable RS based text from the article in question can be merged. Edaham (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The company has been notable enough for mention at Universal flu vaccine for some years. The title has been a redirect since 2016. In the intervening time the company has advanced in its research, but more critically for notability, been listed on NASDEQ. If you look to the bottom of the page there is a nav box of NASDAQ listed Isreali companies, almost all of which have pages, and this company has been an unlinked entry in the nav box for some time. Globes and the Times of Israel are top tier RSs and both have covered this subject multiple times over the span of years. Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I've since noticed that. Agreed. Signed... oops Edaham (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I took time out of my own day and worked over this incompetent piece of advertising filth. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2018 (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.