Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:BiondVax

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:BiondVax


Unacceptable page last declined in March 2016. Various accounts have been making changes and preventing G13 deletions ever since. Time to delete the page and remove the advertising. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - One of the editors making the diddly changes has been blocked for sockpuppetry. We don't know whether the other diddly editors are paid editors, but in any case we don't need to keep this.  If they get their vaccine approved, that will be important.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep / Clarification requested - I'm the main editor of this draft, and an employee of BiondVax. Thank you for letting me know it's being considered for deletion. I don't understand why this article isn't considered worthy of Wikipedia. The idea of improved flu vaccines is relevant, and BiondVax is the most advanced Universal flu vaccine candidate, heading to a pivotal Phases_of_clinical_research clinical trial this year. It is traded on NASDAQ. It's largest investor is the fund of Check Point's co-founder and chairman. Head of the Scientific Advisory Board is Ruth Arnon. It's received substantial support from the European Investment Bank. And the US NIAID is funding and running a trial on our vaccine. What more would it take to make this worthy of Wikipedia? --WanderingJosh (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:WanderingJosh - This has been moldering in Draft Space for two years. If you think that the company satisfies corporate notability, go ahead and submit it to AFC for review, or even move it to article space and let the community decide on AFD.  As it is, you and a sockpuppet have just been tweaking it in draft space, evidently to keep it under the radar.  Either submit it to AFC, or move it to article space, or recognize that it has been in draft space too long.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually I missed its on the NASDAQ and per WP:LISTED it is pretty much auto notable. I'm prepared to mainspace it and let NPP take a run at remaining issues. Withdraw Legacypac (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, it is ipso facto notable. However, acceptance of drafts is based on a combination of notability and tone and neutrality, not just notability.  I realize that if a draft that is notable but is badly non-neutral, just not to the point of G11, it won't get cleaned up in finite time.  I personally think that a non-neutral article that is marginally notable should be deleted for TNT, but I am in a minority, and it will just be tagged and left tagged.  The company is notable, but the article should also otherwise be at least minimally acceptable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So I'm not seeing a lot of promotional language. How about you cut the parts you don't like and we are good to go. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 7 March 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.