Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heat Biologics


 * 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 no consensus. While there are sources, there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether they are of sufficient quality to put this over the notability bar. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Heat Biologics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The firm has not yet marketed any products. I cannot see the purpose of this except for promotion.  DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches found nothing outstandingly better than a few links but almost entirely PR at News and browsers, not yet salvageable. Notifying tagger . SwisterTwister   talk  06:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep,, I believe this is a mistake. This is a publicly traded company trading on the NASDAQ Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, the second largest exchange in the world by market capitalization, per WP:LISTED these are inherently notable. A source check confirms an overabundance of sources . It requires many sources before a company can be listed on the NASDAQ (there notability requirements are higher than ours). The pharmaceutical industry often generates revenue based on venture capitalism for drug research before a product is released. Valoem   talk   contrib  10:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Valoem, have you found any substantive third-party sources for this company in the past week? That is, not based on press releases, and not the usual stock-market chatter? --Macrakis (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re "an overabundance of sources": Heat Biologics gets 220; I get 148. I do not claim that means I warrant a WP article --Macrakis (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  Delete 
 * WP:LISTED explicitly says "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case."
 * The article itself provides only references to publications by its affiliates, including both scientific articles and press releases.
 * The search results you cite are all routine stock market notices and stock analyst mentions.
 * NASDAQ does not have "notability" requirements. It has capital requirements, etc., but not notability requirements. NASDAQ is a stock exchange, not an encyclopedia. The total capitalization of stocks on NASDAQ proves nothing at all about the notability of any individual company listed there.
 * Generating revenue is also not an indication of notability.
 * This editor has created a series of articles about related companies and people (smells like WP:COI, but that's another matter...) none of which include any evidence of notability according to our standards. I have tagged most of them with "Third-party" in the expectation that some indication of notability can be found. But the editor does not seem to be paying attention to those tags. Let's hope this AFD prompts him or her to add some solid third-party references. --Macrakis (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am an expert in this field working in the industry for 7 years. NASDAQ is notable, and capital requirements is a good judge of notability. Yes there are some press releases, but that does not deny the solid sources. I believe the confusion here is between NASDAQ and OTC markets, the latter is not notable. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was responsible for data quality about public and private companies at a financial services firm for several years, so I am not confusing NASDAQ and OTC. I am simply asking that we apply our existing, well-documented notability policies to this company. It may well be true that there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for this company and the other companies added by User:OzBioMan, in which case, let's find it. --Macrakis (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment As I understand our customary practice, LISTED applies only to the main board of the NYSE and corresponding boards in other countries. I  do not challenge for notability companies on the main NYSE, non-notable as I may think them in  reality.  It has never been applied to NASDAQ and similar--some companies there are notable--it is not  an absolute disqualification, but most of them are not.  Similarly, generating revenue beyond a certain amount is an indication of likely notability -- beyond, say, $100 million a year; below that figure is certainly possible, but not automatic. Attracting money by venture capitalization is not generating revenue, it's providing capital from which it is hoped that  revenue may be generated in the future (but most of time, it never is, which is why it's called venture capitalism) .  DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability (organizations and companies) says (my bolding): "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability. Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion."     <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> The article notes: "Heat Biologics was spun out of the University of Miami in 2008. The company last year relocated to North Carolina, though it still maintains a research facility at the University of Miami Life Science Park. The company’s technology has applications beyond cancers. Heat is also conducting preclinical research of its technology as a possible HIV treatment. The company has received National Institutes of Health funding to support the HIV research."</li> <li>Heat Biologics is a publicly traded corporation. According to Notability (organizations and companies): "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/analystResearch?symbol=HTBX.OQWebCite lists several analyst reports about Heat Biologics: <ol> <li>Published 9 January 2016 by ValuEngine (11 pages). "ValuEngine Rating and Forecast Report for HTBX."</li> <li>Published 8 January 2016 by Pechala's Reports (2 pages). "HEAT BIOLOGICS INC (HTBX=US) - SHORT AND LONG TERM FORECASTS FOR ACTIVE TRADERS."</li> <li>Published 8 January 2016 by Reuters Investment Profile (12 pages). "Heat Biologics Inc: Business description, financial summary, 3yr and interim financials, key statistics/ratios and historical ratio analysis."</li> <li>Published 8 January 2016 by Thomson Reuters Stock Report (11 pages). "Thomson Reuters Stock Report - Heat Biologics Inc (HTBX-O)."</li> <li>Published 14 December 2015 by GlobalData (46 pages). "Heat Biologics, Inc. (HTBX) - Financial Analysis Review."</li> <li>Published 13 November 2015 by Pechala's Reports (2 pages). "HEAT BIOLOGICS INC (HTBX=US) - SHORT AND LONG TERM FORECASTS FOR ACTIVE TRADERS."</li> </ol> <li>Morningstar, Inc. also has an analyst report under a paywall at http://www.morningstar.com/stocks/XNAS/HTBX/quote.html.</li> <li>Zacks Investment Research hasWebCite numerous analyst reports about Heat Biologics.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Heat Biologics to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - simply put, a company which currently sells no products on the open market and has none even in phase 3. There's a good shot they'll be taken over before they sell anything if they ever do come up with the goods. There is some news coverage though. They are Nasdaq-listed, but that doesn't automatically mean very interesting: so are 3000 other companies. It's not like they're on the NASDAQ-100 or another index of major companies. Blythwood (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This argument for deletion is at odds with the guideline Notability (organizations and companies). Notability (organizations and companies) says (my bolding): "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." The 12-page Reuters Investment Profile analyst report, the 46-page GlobalData analyst report, and the 11-page Thomson Reuters analyst report are "in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources".  The guideline says "analyst reports" are acceptable sources, and I've shown here that Heat Biologics has received substantial coverage from analyst reports.  Cunard (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging . Would you take a look at the analyst reports I've linked here? Cunard (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm frankly not certain as it's some coverage but I'm also not fully convinced. Notifying nominator for analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * SwisterTwister, the "some coverage" is a 12-page Reuters Investment Profile analyst report, a 46-page GlobalData analyst report, and an 11-page Thomson Reuters analyst report. Why are you "not fully convinced"? DGG wrote in another AfD: "Personally, I think our inclusion criteria for many sports are a considerably too low in some respects, and would like to see them increased. But I do not mistake my wishes for what our guidelines ought to be, for the actual accepted guidelines. And if I wanted to change them I would go the route of an RfC, not a particular AfD. I don't do that because 1/ it is not a high priority for me, and 2/I think the consensus does agree with our relative unrestrictive guidelines in this field,and when something is that well established and harmless, it's not a good idea to change it." This is applicable here. Although DGG listed his personal criteria above about what qualifies a company as notable, it is clear that Notability (organizations and companies) says that "analyst reports" can be used to establish notability. That Heat Biologics has received 12-page, 46-page, and 11-page analyst reports means that it is notable. If any editors think analyst reports are insufficient to establish notability, they should "go the route of an RfC, not a particular AfD". Cunard (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep Thanks, Cunard, for the list of analyst reports and the reference to the Notability guidelines, which explicitly mention analyst reports as evidence of notability. I don't think analyst reports constitute reliable sources (especially if they are distributed under confidentiality conditions), but I'll have to discuss that at the Notability Talk page as you suggest. --Macrakis (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for evaluating the sources and guideline link I posted. I appreciate your open-mindedness, a quality seldom seen at AfD. (I have stricken your "delete" vote above so the closing admin can easily see that you have changed your position.) Analyst reports are considered independent reliable sources because they are prepared by reputable research companies like Thomson Reuters and Morningstar, Inc. Regarding "they are distributed under confidentiality conditions", analyst reports can be purchased by anyone who can afford them. Many analyst reports are expensive closed-access sources like articles housed in JSTOR, EBSCO, and the other databases at The Wikipedia Library.  Verifiability says: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)."  Cunard (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cunard, I agree completely that closed-access, pay sources can be WP:RS. The issue I raised is confidentiality agreements. Many analyst reports I've seen include language like "This document is being supplied to you solely for your information, and its contents, information or data may not be reproduced, redistributed or passed on, directly or indirectly." This is far more stringent than a copyright notice. It says not only that the document may not be reproduced, but that the information in it may not be passed on. I am not a lawyer, and do not know if this is enforceable, but on the face of it, this sort of restriction seems to forbid the use of the report as a Wikipedia source; and also to violate WP:SOURCE. The mere existence of an analyst reports seems like a thin thread to hang Notability on. --Macrakis (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting point and would be worth further discussion on the notability talk page. Here is a sample analyst report from Morningstar, Inc. and here is a sample analyst report from Thomson Reuters, which do not have restrictive language like that. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 25 January 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.