Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novavax, Inc.


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator

Novavax, Inc.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:Notability; WP:NOT and WP:RS This company and it's research is not notable in the scientific world. The sources are all from sources related to the company. Reads like a WP:Advert. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Added note: All of the sources are primary sources. 7 of the 9 sources being used are directly from Novavax. And the other two are websites and not RS. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 3.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 17:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  Probably keep. I haven't done the research, but the fact that they're on the NYSE is a fairly certain sign that there will be enough sources out there. I know WP:LISTED says that being on an exchange doesn't itself confer notability, but it also says that experience has shown that in almost every case such companies easily pass WP:GNG anyway. No comment on whether this violates WP:ADVERT at this time, but I think if there's a significant problem it should be fixable. Worst case, stubbify it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Changed to keep based on the sources I produced below. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it fails WP:GNG. Also, not on NYSE. It's on Nasdaq as are thousands of other non-noteworthy companies just like it. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right, it's on NASDAQ, just that pulls it up on the NYSE's page. I didn't see the fine print. Anyway, it's listed, which unsurprisingly means there are literally garbage trucks full of content about the company out there. Yes, a lot seems to be trivial, and some seems to just be reprints of their press releases. Let me rephrase my argument above: it seems more likely than not that this company meets WP:CORP. Have you done WP:BEFORE? If so please show your work. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You should probably look at the article and the company press releases being used to source the article, as well as read the relevant policy about What wikipedia is not and WP:notability and reliable sources. The article, as the tag on the article notes, is based on information that comes directly from the company, not reliable third party sources. It fails WP:CORP. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT, or demonstrate that you can't. AfD is not for cleanup, follow WP:BEFORE please. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did do WP:BEFORE. What makes you think I didn't? Malke 2010 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You looked for sources and tried to improve the article? You never said anything about your search, which surely involved crafting some creative searches to try and separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of the tens of thousands of hits on the news archives and academic databases. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article can't be improved without reliable sources which Google searches show do not exist, ergo the AfD. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong:
 * It took me all of five minutes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me all of five minutes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me all of five minutes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me all of five minutes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me all of five minutes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me all of five minutes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me all of five minutes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me all of five minutes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

These are items from 10-14 years ago: 2000, 2001, 2003. Did they develop that HIV vaccine they got the $19 million for? Are they noted for that? What vaccines are they noted for? There is nothing here that makes this company notable as a developer of vaccines. These news articles are all based on the company's press releases and the grand jury probe of theft at the company. They moved to Pennsylvania. they severed ties with another company. That's not real WP:Notability. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NTEMP: Just because the evidence of notability is old doesn't mean the subject is not notable. And the fact that the articles were stimulated by a press release or a grand jury investigation does not mean they are not "independent of the subject" within the meaning of WP:GNG. I respectfully suggest you withdraw this nomination given you clearly did not comply with WP:BEFORE. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you are making the erroneous assumption that this subject needs to be a notable developer of vaccines as opposed to a notable company. There is no such notability guideline as WP:NVACC. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I created the page, and am new to Wikipedia. Im just learning the process, and found this discussion just now (I had mistakenly thought conversation should occur on user talk pages and the article talk page). If you regard the Companies in the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index, you will see many companies in simliar situation. It seems some are tagged for notability, some arent. But I think this tag for deletion is unique to the Novavax article (unless others have been created and deleted). Its possible to consider that a determination on this company's page would have implications to the other pages. Thanks for the discussion, I didnt know people were looking at this. Regards.January2009 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC) [...] 'Notability' is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance.' No matter how 'important' editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. [...] However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."Further down, in WP:LISTED:"[S]ufficient independent sources almost always exist for [listed] companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source). Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability."The criterion you propose here—namely that a corporation need have "importance" in connection with its primary products—is not only novel, it goes against how WP:N has been applied for a very long time. Furthermore, given your claim that no significant coverage existed at the beginning of this discussion and refusal to discuss your attempt to search for such coverage in any detail, followed by my providing evidence of significant coverage, suggests that you are likely also incorrect about there being no significant coverage of its products either. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi January. Unfortunately, I think you'll find that the argument that this page may be being treated differently than other pages doesn't carry a lot of weight in deletion discussions. What matters, more than anything, is whether this particular company is notable pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines for notability (see WP:CORP and WP:GNG). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep missing the point which is that this company is not notable for vaccine development. All the article could say at this point, using the sources you've shown, is that it had issues with theft, it severed ties from another company, and it hasn't been in the news since 2003. There's nothing notable there to justify a Wikipedia article. The one thing it should be notable for, vaccines, it isn't notable for. This could explain the reason the sources are 10-14 years old. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not addressing your "point" because it's not a valid argument. From WP:CORP:"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.
 * By the way, there's a Hoover's in-depth profile on Novavax. Given WP:LISTED explicitly endorses Hoover's profiles as an example of a source that can be used to satisfy the primary criterion. Here's the non-paywalled version: http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.Novavax_Inc.22005264f77eb563.html. The full version is much longer. Reuters Knowledge Direct has a similar profile. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you want a source talking about one of their products, you might be interested in this article: That isn't a reprint of a press release either, it's an actual article. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering why you advocate so aggressively for this article to remain when it seems clear this is not a notable company? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Aggressively? This is basic procedure anybody should follow before nominating an article for AfD. Even by your inflated interpretation of WP:CORP, you can't refute that the Hoover's profile satisfies every prong of the primary criterion except "multiple" (i.e., we need more than one source that does this). Can you honestly say that every single source I've submitted above is insufficient to push this subject over the edge? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Couple more sources:
 * (one paragraph on p. 4929 discussing Novavax processes in comparison to other companies')
 * (two paragraphs discussing Novavax processes from a business setting)
 * Datamonitor's Marketline has published fairly extensive (multipage) SWOT analyses of Novavax yearly since 2007.
 * And this is stuff that actually talks about Novavax's scientific aspects rather than the pure business and finance aspects (and there's a boatload of material on that in publications like the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the additions of citations to recent publication in the New England Journal of Medicine regarding the company's pandemic flu vaccine should be enough to settle the notability issue. NEJM is the worlds foremost medical journal and publication in it speaks volumes. Additionally, Novavax was just discussed in Wired magazine regarding the MERS outbreak, for which a citation was also added.XerxesImmortal (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — XerxesImmortal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Between NEJM and Journal of Virology (Spanish Flu Vaccine)articles it is hard to argue non-notability. Both are reliable sources and both found company notable. User:GvacWP — Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)  — GvacWP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - the Hoovers source seems okay and the bits and pieces listed above probably tip it over the edge. The lack of newer coverage makes verification of more recent activity difficult but WP:NOTTEMP means that's not really a consideration. Stalwart 111  15:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: Per WP:NCCORP this article should be moved to Novavax without the Inc. if kept. I'd do it myself but since the AfD is pending I'm not going to fool around with it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Another Note to closing admin :) There doesn't seem a real consensus to keep or delete. Please relist the AfD when it expires here. The sources being used here are being represented as if they are scientific, peer-reviewed studies of Novavax research, which they are not. Rather, they are simply public relations releases in multiple publications, some of which are very old. Even The New England Journal of Medicine source is not a research article but simply a letter to the editor from Novavax. There really isn't anything here that shows the company is notable. As you can see, there are two SPA's here, as well. One hasn't edited anything but Novavax. It seems it could use another go at listing for others to weigh in. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think the general coverage allows this to meet WP:GNG (just) from the perspective that the sources provide some coverage of the company and its work. Whether or not the sources are sufficient (per WP:MEDRS) to verify scientific claims about research methodologies and results is another matter entirely. Let's get more eyes. Stalwart 111  01:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * you might want to strike through your 'weak keep' in that case. And yes, the sources are all primary when they should be secondary review articles to meet the neutral pov requirement. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean the weak part? Not following. I think it passes GNG, but only just. So I think it should be kept, but only just. Thus "weak keep". Stalwart 111  04:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If NPOV is an issue, it can be addressed through editing. The only valid argument I've seen for deletion would be on notability grounds, and I've proven, amply, that this company is notable. Though honestly, your rationale has changed so many times through this discussion, whether it's that the coverage needs to be of the company's products rather than their corporate business (which is a distinction WP:CORP doesn't embrace), whether it needs to be of their scientific discoveries (which is likely impossible if you know anything about the nature of academic publications and biotech patents), or whether the coverage needs to be not only by independent authors/publications but cannot have been triggered by a press release... I don't know what you want at this point or what you'll want tomorrow. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The lack of notability and RS are the reasons I put it forward for deletion. It seems it would benefit from a relisting to get the opinions of others. At this point there is no real consensus. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Sources found by Mendaliv seem to indicate the subject meets the GNG and unless things have changed dramatically in a few years the GNG is the threshold, WP:CORP etc. are heuristics (provided the GNG is met). Protonk (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They have Wired magazine and Hoovers, for the business side. But those sources can't support any scientific claims as they are not scientific peer-reviewed journals. If the company claimed it had just invented an HIV/AIDS vaccine, I would go to the literature for verification, and not Wired mag or Wall Street Journal. Also, there's still the question of notability. The problem is, this company claims to be working on these vaccines, but no scientific peer reviewed results are out there. It currently is relying on primary articles and Novavax's website, which we don't use per WP:RS in general, and WP:MEDRS specifically. If we keep it, it needs a rewrite with those primary sources eliminated, including the Novavax website, etc. It will be a stub, which is fine. Lots of articles are stubs. But I still don't see the notability. This is like a company claiming to make fabulous toasters, but the toasters aren't on sale anywhere. I would easily change to keep if someone would show me where they've actually come up with a vaccine, and had those vaccines approved by the FDA and the research scrutinized in a scientific peer-reviewed journal article. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks, I read the rest of your comments in the thread. There's no basis in policy or practice for a company who makes medical products to need to have peer reviewed articles about those products in order to meet our notability guidelines. As has been pointed out to you multiple times, the sources found by other editors in cursory searches which should've been done BEFORE nominating are independent and do seem to allow the subject to meet the GNG. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also no significant coverage for this company. It's business news is episodic and based on company press releases. Right now the only thing this company seems notable for is a declining stock price. But as I said, it could easily be a stub, but it can't have edits backed by company press releases. WP:RS regarding primary sources still applies. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No significant coverage? The Hoover's profile gets you halfway there, and I strongly suspect the Marketline SWOT analyses count. Fill the gaps with the business news and you've got notability. None of the sources I've provided to establish notability are company press releases. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is this company notable for and where is the secondary RS to show that this company is notable for X? Is this significant coverage? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2014 (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.