Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santaris Pharma
- 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 and no objection to a relist at a time when there might be more input Star Mississippi 01:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Santaris Pharma[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Santaris Pharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No real evidence of notability as a standalone company. All the reliable sources in the article barely mention the company, but are focused on some employees. Possible conflict-of-interest editing has been noted since 2015. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Denmark. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There appear to be significant words in Reuters and multiple from WSJ and again so WP:SIRS is satisfied. And this is about more than one event. Article is substantial. Chumpih t 07:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC) + 6 Apr
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. The references posted by Chumpih above do not meet WP:SIRS as claimed. SIRS references WP:ORGIND which requires "Independent Content" that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. This Reuters reference is entirely based on a company announcement with no "Independent Content" except perhaps for the last sentence which, on its own, doesn't make up for the CORPDEPTH requirement. Ditto for the first WSJ reference and the second WSJ reference relies entirely on information from the company with quotes and also falls short of ORGIND/CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 14:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if, for example, you pointed to some in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) information in the article that doesn't rely entirely on information provided by the company or their execs? Otherwise your comment has no weight. HighKing++ 15:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- The article in question is mostly based on info from Roche (not the company in question) and is prior to acquisition so from a business disclosure aspect this is likely to be factual, and without vested interest. Chumpih t 16:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If a company announces its intentions to purchase another company, they definitely have a "vested interest". Even if what you claim has some validity (which it doesn't), Roche already had a vested interest at least six months previously (which is referred to in the Reuters article you linked to). HighKing++ 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, to state 'nonsense' is plain incorrect. There are rules about disclosures before purchase, e.g. the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and TransparencyRules sourcebook. WSJ is fairly scrupulous about its sources, hence WSJ is WP:RS. Therefore bias in the WSJ article is unlikely - the honesty around M+A disclosures is underpinned by law. Chumpih t 18:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it is nonsense to say that Roche had no vested interest. And we're not discussing "bias in the WSJ article" or whether the WSJ is RS or not - ignoratio elenchi. We're looking specifically at our own guidelines, in particular WP:ORGIND which requires "Independent Content" from sources that are *not* affiliated with the topic company. Look - here's a recap of how we got to this point. I provided an analysis and said the references fail NCORP. You said the analysis was questionable. I asked for you to point to a specific part of the article which doesn't rely on info from affiliated sources - you ignored the request, instead claiming that Roche is acceptable as a source as it provided factual information and without vested interests. I refuted that claim by pointing out that Roche had a vested interest and is therefore not unaffiliated. And now you're arguing that the WSJ is a RS. It doesn't matter if the info provided by Roche is factual or not, that isn't the point. Our guidelines explicitly state that we require *multiple* references where a third party writes in-depthly about the topic company. The references must pass WP:SIRS and in particular, from my experience, both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH are the sections which most references fail to meet our criteria. This is no exception. HighKing++ 20:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Roche's statement is prior to acquisition, therefore it's not vested - it would be vested after acquisition (unless we're applying a hedonic definition of vested). The guidelines have been considered. The arguments here pertain to SIRS for this WSJ reference. It's arguably independent - no vested interest, and possibly subject to FCA guidelines. It's arguably from a reliable source - WSJ are robust in their fact checking . It's substantial, with descriptions about the company in question. Chumpih t 21:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, that is all still utter nonsense, I cannot believe you're trying to argue that Roche were "unaffiliated" with the topic company at the time they were announcing the pending takeover. Also, not sure why you want to pick over a definition of "vested interest", strikes me as wiki-lawyering especially as WP:ORGIND has no mention of "vested interest". Even so, your strictly legal/financial limitations on the term flies in the face of everyday use and understanding - for example your definition rules out usaeg such as "banks have a vested interest in the growth of their customers" or "the riverside cafe has a vested interest in the success of local tourist attractions". All of which discussion and your objections fall away once it is pointed out to you that in the very Reuters reference you provided above, a "vested interest" is confirmed where the topic company's CEO says "Andersson said Santaris is not in immediate need of funding as it recently struck a deal with Swiss pharma giant Roche, which secured funding for its research beyond the end of 2014." HighKing++ 11:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, that would be the WP:ORGIND that starts with the words:
A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation...
. Further discourse here is likely to be pointless. Chumpih t 12:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)- Apologies, I am wrong (some wouldn't have been able to resist the urge to say I was talking nonsense :-) and you are correct, ORGIND is as you say. Still doesn't obviate the overall point though, that your "definition" of "vested interest" is too narrow and appears to require a financial stake and ignores Roche's prior investment. But yeah, I think we're done. HighKing++ 13:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, that would be the WP:ORGIND that starts with the words:
- Sorry, that is all still utter nonsense, I cannot believe you're trying to argue that Roche were "unaffiliated" with the topic company at the time they were announcing the pending takeover. Also, not sure why you want to pick over a definition of "vested interest", strikes me as wiki-lawyering especially as WP:ORGIND has no mention of "vested interest". Even so, your strictly legal/financial limitations on the term flies in the face of everyday use and understanding - for example your definition rules out usaeg such as "banks have a vested interest in the growth of their customers" or "the riverside cafe has a vested interest in the success of local tourist attractions". All of which discussion and your objections fall away once it is pointed out to you that in the very Reuters reference you provided above, a "vested interest" is confirmed where the topic company's CEO says "Andersson said Santaris is not in immediate need of funding as it recently struck a deal with Swiss pharma giant Roche, which secured funding for its research beyond the end of 2014." HighKing++ 11:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Roche's statement is prior to acquisition, therefore it's not vested - it would be vested after acquisition (unless we're applying a hedonic definition of vested). The guidelines have been considered. The arguments here pertain to SIRS for this WSJ reference. It's arguably independent - no vested interest, and possibly subject to FCA guidelines. It's arguably from a reliable source - WSJ are robust in their fact checking . It's substantial, with descriptions about the company in question. Chumpih t 21:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it is nonsense to say that Roche had no vested interest. And we're not discussing "bias in the WSJ article" or whether the WSJ is RS or not - ignoratio elenchi. We're looking specifically at our own guidelines, in particular WP:ORGIND which requires "Independent Content" from sources that are *not* affiliated with the topic company. Look - here's a recap of how we got to this point. I provided an analysis and said the references fail NCORP. You said the analysis was questionable. I asked for you to point to a specific part of the article which doesn't rely on info from affiliated sources - you ignored the request, instead claiming that Roche is acceptable as a source as it provided factual information and without vested interests. I refuted that claim by pointing out that Roche had a vested interest and is therefore not unaffiliated. And now you're arguing that the WSJ is a RS. It doesn't matter if the info provided by Roche is factual or not, that isn't the point. Our guidelines explicitly state that we require *multiple* references where a third party writes in-depthly about the topic company. The references must pass WP:SIRS and in particular, from my experience, both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH are the sections which most references fail to meet our criteria. This is no exception. HighKing++ 20:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, to state 'nonsense' is plain incorrect. There are rules about disclosures before purchase, e.g. the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and TransparencyRules sourcebook. WSJ is fairly scrupulous about its sources, hence WSJ is WP:RS. Therefore bias in the WSJ article is unlikely - the honesty around M+A disclosures is underpinned by law. Chumpih t 18:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If a company announces its intentions to purchase another company, they definitely have a "vested interest". Even if what you claim has some validity (which it doesn't), Roche already had a vested interest at least six months previously (which is referred to in the Reuters article you linked to). HighKing++ 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- The article in question is mostly based on info from Roche (not the company in question) and is prior to acquisition so from a business disclosure aspect this is likely to be factual, and without vested interest. Chumpih t 16:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if, for example, you pointed to some in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) information in the article that doesn't rely entirely on information provided by the company or their execs? Otherwise your comment has no weight. HighKing++ 15:27, 8 April 2022 (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.