Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderna Therapeutics

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. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moderna Therapeutics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for IP editor 72.85.228.95, whose rationale is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article lacks notability. Some of the references quoted as Featured articles are ipress releases. 72.85.228.95 (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 350 such biotech companies in the Cambridge, MA area. Most of them have made business deals with major pharmaceuticals, as a mean to raise funds. There is nothing notable or unique about Moderna Therapeutics. Although technology claimed to be interesting but there is no proof of concept or clinical candidates. The patents claims could not be verified at the US Patent Office web site. Having Harvard Professors as board members is not a big deal. Almost all the biotechnology companies hire professors from Ivy League universities for Scientific Board, which are as show piece names to display on the company website, but have no real role or important roles in the company operation. I do not find this company profile notable. It is like another biotechnology company among millions of others in the world. Most probably intent is promotion behind creation of this profile. It should be deleted. 72.93.171.77 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The SPA's reasoning is thorough and well founded, I agree. Unfortunately, however insignificant this company might be, the fundamental element of WP:CORP -- and, indeed, of the GNG -- is "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The subject is discussed, in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, Boston Business Journal and Boston Magazine, just to name some of the references already in the article. These are highly reliable sources with national reach, any two of which would be sufficient to meet notability requirements. Ravenswing 23:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete:~~ This company is not discussed in New York Times, Boston Globe. In fact those were news based upon press release. It is wrong and misleading to say that company was extensively discussed in Boston Globe, the New York Times, Boston Business Journal and Boston Magazine. News derived from Press Releases are not discussions. Those kind of news are published everyday in the news paper. The company is not notable at all. It should be deleted.72.85.228.95 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ahem. It is not remotely wrong to say that the company was extensively discussed in these sources: the New York Times article is over 600 words, the Boston Globe and Boston Business Journal articles nearly 450, the Boston Magazine article nearly five thousand. Each carries a reporter's byline, not the hallmark of press release articles. Each has quotes from different people, and none are written in the fashion of a press release. All discuss the subject in considerably more detail than the GNG requires. The claims of the anon IPs that this is not the case -- and using some curiously similar language to do so -- either displays ignorance of our requirements, never having read the sources in the first place, or some agenda other than application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm starting to lean towards the latter, especially since the nom's only other Wikipedia activity is an AfD seeking to delete the article for Moderna's CEO, a deletion discussion likewise heavily trafficked by anon IPs. Ravenswing 21:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completed this nomination as per WP:AGF, which usually serves me in good stead. But given the comments here and the referencing I'm seeing, perhaps that was an error. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you were just helping out. As far as the merits of the AfD, that's why we have deletion discussions in the first place. I'm not -- yet -- terming this a bad faith nomination, but if this company is as insignificant as these anon IPs claim, how did they possibly find the article in the first place, and how would they know enough to file for deletion? Ravenswing 21:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is in multiple reliable sources.Berlinweiss (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moderna Therapeutics meets notability guidelines being in multiple reliable sources such as The New York Times, Boston Business Journal, and Businessweek. Publicindividual87 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Publicindividual87 was blocked as a sock-puppet of Morning277[reply]

Comment The New York Times, Boston Business Journal, and BusinessWeek articles are about AstraZeneca, not Moderna in particular, with Moderna mention as one of the small company with which AstraZeneca made a deal.Sh scientist (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Sh scientist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete A very clear case of not yet notable According to the article "y that is researching and developing protein therapies based on novel messenger RNA technology." it does not yet have a developed product, not even one in the first stages of human testing. The NYT article being relied on for notability is essential about about Astrazeneca, not about the company whose patent it bought. We have a standing practice about patents: they are only significant if exploited. How can a company with no product possibly be notable? Its more in the class of garage bands with no recordings.

Comment: I'm surprised there, DGG -- you know better than that. A garage band that has nonetheless secured multi-hundred (or multi THOUSAND) word articles in multiple reliable sources would meet the standards of the GNG no matter how little they'd ever actually produced. You know full well that an article does not have to be solely about the subject, as long as it discusses the subject in "significant detail" -- as the NYT AND the Boston Globe AND the Boston Magazine AND the Boston Business Week articles do. Such notability criteria such as WP:BAND are always subordinate to the GNG. Ravenswing 01:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Boston Globe, and other news papers articles are about a collaboration deal with AstraZeneca. The articles do not specifically discuss Moderna. Company is not table. Its technology is not proven. Google search will show that several blogs questions AstraZeneca throwing money on a technology which had not been proven. I agree with DGG arguments. The purpose of the articles could be self promotion.Sh scientist (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Sh scientist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Your assertion is just not true. The Boston Globe article, titled "Moderna Theraputics in line for $240m licensing deal," quotes Moderna executives and is focused on the company. The multi-page Boston Magazine article is entirely about Moderna. The New York Times article references Moderna extensively. As far as the stability of the company, the worth of its technology or whether AstraZeneca has made a good deal goes, these elements form no part of Wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines, and cannot be considered in this or any other deletion discussion. Frankly, we should be less concerned about whether a well-sourced article constitutes self-promotion, and more concerned at this curious, anonymous campaign to get the article removed. Ravenswing 23:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ravenswing, you can follow Wikipedia policy. As far as I am concerned, I do not see whole discussion as an anonymous campaign. I had been working in the biotechnology field since 28 years and hold senior positions. Moderna article is deleted or not, I do not care about it. It is one of those garbage companies for professionals like me and others. At some point, you raised the point that how people find the article on Moderna. What surprises me the tone of your comments and writeup, as Admin, to defend and attack others. For your information, there is something called Google, and searches on AstraZeneca are returning Moderna too. Anyway, there are thousands of thousands irrelevant article in Wikipedia, who really cares if one more there!!! An article in Wikipedia does not lift the status of a third rated company to something good. Thanks for the discussions, I am out of it.Sh scientist (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Painfully obvious keep I stopped after reading the very first non-company ref, which was a multi-page article written specifically about this company with references to ones like it. Meets every criterion for NOTE I've ever seen. The only cogent DEL argument I can find is the anon's comment about patents, but I don't know enough about that to say, and the nom didn't argue that. Should be trivially closed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.