360:. 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.
704:
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
257:, 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
703:
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
640:
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
392:
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
228:
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
602:
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
477:
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.
621:
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
Knowledge (XXG), but they need substantial coverage. See
407:
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.
168:
535:
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. --
234:
162:
121:
279:
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.
301:
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
428:
323:
378:
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
549:
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.
128:
94:
89:
229:
irrelevant to whether it should be listed on
Knowledge (XXG) or not), (B) has presented at conferences (including ALZ's AAIC 2015), (C) is listed
98:
584:
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
81:
607:" is invalid for many reasons, one of them being that Leprof pointed out this is an article about a company, not about settled medicine. --
261:, 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.
563:
238:
17:
183:
150:
674:
The company exists and its trials are confirmed by multiple sources to be real and with significant preliminary results. --
521:
Don't forget to mention that you are one of the two who deleted large sections of the article, including posted sources.--
450:
344:
734:
40:
250:
144:
715:
695:
683:
650:
635:
616:
597:
575:
558:
544:
530:
512:
487:
468:
440:
417:
402:
387:
369:
349:
310:
288:
274:
220:
63:
140:
338:
85:
246:
190:
77:
69:
61:
730:
383:
365:
306:
36:
679:
646:
612:
571:
540:
526:
413:
270:
176:
156:
464:
604:
581:
208:
211:
sources about their products (which would be for an article about their products, in any case.
631:
593:
554:
508:
436:
54:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
729:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
500:
253:. Note that the article being nominated for deletion has been very significantly cut down by
203:. Search for sources yields only discussion on penny stock boards, press releases and other
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
483:
398:
379:
361:
332:
302:
284:
216:
585:
204:
200:
692:
675:
642:
608:
567:
536:
522:
409:
296:
266:
711:
460:
627:
589:
550:
504:
432:
254:
115:
393:
there, when they arrive here, and each will decide if they want to !vote or not.
479:
394:
327:
280:
258:
212:
207:, and other poor sources. They have no products on the market so there are no
230:
52:. No persuasive arguments for keeping the article have been submitted. –
706:
580:
So that's a short item from Yahoo! Australia on a new pill. It fails
623:
723:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
453:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
262:
111:
107:
103:
249:
showing promising results with probably the only drug
175:
251:
that corrects protein folding in
Alzheimer's patients
459:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
189:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
737:). No further edits should be made to this page.
429:list of New York-related deletion discussions
324:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
499:– no significant coverage, so does not meet
427:Note: This debate has been included in the
322:Note: This debate has been included in the
426:
321:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
358:Table / allow extended dicussion
1:
716:21:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
691:Same reasons as Agamemnus.
64:02:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
754:
696:17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
684:16:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
651:16:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
636:16:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
617:16:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
598:10:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
576:07:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
559:03:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
545:22:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
531:22:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
513:18:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
488:18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
469:17:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
241:, and very significantly,
441:19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
418:19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
403:19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
388:19:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
370:18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
350:02:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
311:19:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
289:01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
275:01:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
221:00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
726:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
231:on the US stock market
78:Anavex Life Sciences
70:Anavex Life Sciences
293:I would recommend
471:
443:
352:
348:
263:See history here.
745:
728:
641:conduct more. --
458:
456:
454:
330:
300:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
57:
34:
753:
752:
748:
747:
746:
744:
743:
742:
741:
735:deletion review
724:
472:
449:
447:
294:
233:, (D) has been
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
751:
749:
740:
739:
719:
718:
698:
686:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
533:
516:
515:
493:
492:
491:
490:
457:
446:
445:
444:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
390:
373:
372:
354:
353:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
750:
738:
736:
732:
727:
721:
720:
717:
713:
709:
708:
702:
699:
697:
694:
690:
687:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
669:
652:
648:
644:
639:
638:
637:
633:
629:
625:
620:
619:
618:
614:
610:
606:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
534:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
494:
489:
485:
481:
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
462:
455:
452:
442:
438:
434:
430:
425:
419:
415:
411:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
391:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
355:
351:
346:
343:
340:
337:
334:
329:
325:
320:
312:
308:
304:
298:
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
725:
722:
705:
700:
688:
671:
496:
448:
357:
341:
335:
255:User:Alexbrn
242:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
56:Juliancolton
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
380:Leprof 7272
362:Leprof 7272
303:Leprof 7272
259:User:Jytdog
163:free images
693:JD Lambert
588:. Delete.
731:talk page
676:Agamemnus
643:Agamemnus
609:Agamemnus
568:Agamemnus
537:Agamemnus
523:Agamemnus
433:• Gene93k
410:Agamemnus
297:Agamemnus
267:Agamemnus
37:talk page
733:or in a
605:WP:MEDRS
582:WP:MEDRS
461:Davewild
451:Relisted
209:WP:MEDRS
122:View log
39:or in a
628:Alexbrn
590:Alexbrn
551:Alexbrn
505:Alexbrn
501:WP:CORP
237:by the
235:covered
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
701:Delete
586:WP:GNG
497:Delete
480:Jytdog
395:Jytdog
328:JJMC89
281:Jytdog
245:has a
213:Jytdog
205:WP:SPS
201:WP:ORG
199:Fails
141:Google
99:delete
50:delete
712:talk
689:Keep.
672:Keep.
626:e.g.
624:GERAC
247:trial
239:media
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
680:talk
647:talk
632:talk
613:talk
594:talk
572:talk
566:. --
564:This
555:talk
541:talk
527:talk
509:talk
484:talk
465:talk
437:talk
414:talk
399:talk
384:talk
366:talk
326:. —
307:talk
285:talk
271:talk
217:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
707:DGG
243:(E)
191:TWL
120:– (
714:)
682:)
649:)
634:)
615:)
596:)
574:)
557:)
543:)
529:)
511:)
503:.
486:)
467:)
439:)
431:.
416:)
408:--
401:)
386:)
368:)
309:)
287:)
273:)
265:--
219:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
60:|
710:(
678:(
645:(
630:(
611:(
592:(
570:(
553:(
539:(
525:(
507:(
482:(
463:(
435:(
412:(
397:(
382:(
364:(
347:)
345:C
342:·
339:E
336:·
333:T
331:(
305:(
299::
295:@
283:(
269:(
215:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.