Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agendia

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 redirect to MammaPrint. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agendia[edit]

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

Non-notable company, no significant coverage in reliable sources. No indication of meeting WP:ORG. The article was previously speedily deleted as a blatant advertisement; the current version is, for all I can tell, a recreation. Huon (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company produces an important product (MammaPrint) that is widely known in the oncology world, representing a commercialization of the original academic university endeavor. Article needs additional edits, sources, and considerable work (and I am not undertaking to do the necessary work) but company is noteworthy. AFD tag should be removed and meaningful directive tags added to facilitate collaborative editing.FeatherPluma (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — FeatherPluma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete/merge some content to MammaPrint I find myself persuaded by Cerejota's articulation of the clear issue that notability is not inherited, and that the notable topic is the test, rather than the company. I also acknowledge that the article on the company has probably appreciably more interest within the field than for general readers. Even with a deep troll I can't find any really good article-saving RS. There is a nagging problem in my mind that there is no other proper venue in WP for all the OTHER tests (other than MammaPrint) but the present situation really does not support them as independently notable (altho they speculatively might "get there.") Although I put some considerable effort to breathe some life into the article I take that as a learning experience. By the way, and in the converse as to Cerejota's principal point, I assertively / explicitly dissaffirm any WP:COI/WP:NOPAY concerns he may have in regards to myself... any distraction in that direction is moot. I do understand and agree with the valid part of his input. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Looks fishy. Might be gamed by a wiki-saavy editor. Lists lots of references, all of the ones I checked don't mention them. Half of it is catalog type info rather than encyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaffiliated with the company. I actually have no bias or ax to bear in the matter of the article's deletion or retention. However, from an academic viewpoint I wish to gently express some concern about the level of encyclopedic scholarship in relation to speculative possibilities. I sort of appreciate the reasons for your opinion that the article maybe "looks fishy", as there are indeed issues with this freshly posted article which hasn't had much of a chance to be edited yet. The problem is that the sentence, "Lists lots of references, all of the ones I checked don't mention them" (meaning Agendia) really does not make any sense to me, for several reasons: 1) If you look a little further you will readily find numerous citations in the article that do just that, including an FDA citation which includes the sentence, "MammaPrint was developed by Agendia, a laboratory located in Amsterdam, Netherlands, where the product has been on the market since 2005." 2) There are also Reuters and a Wall Street (but note that the 2nd of these was added after your comment) citation discussing a 90 million euro IPO that specifically names "them." Bearing in mind WP:AGF, I suspect that you didn't have time to read all the references, which is possible since you indicated that "all of the ones" you checked (i.e. you checked a subset) didn't... In short, the idea that the article "might be gamed" is uncorroborated speculation, and it turns out, seems to be factually wrong. In the interests of not quenching flawed but correctable new articles on WP, may I reflect to you that the guidelines support a pleasant, intellectual, nerdy appeal that decisions and indeed opinions regarding AfD need to be based on thorough research and careful explanatory detail, articulating which relevant criteria are or are not met? That said, the article is indeed flawed in several ways, and I have made a number of edits to the article, including transitioning some references to a WP:MEDRS standard, to start it along the road toward being a reasonable contribution. I may (or may not) be able to return to it some in a few days to tweak it further.FeatherPluma (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article still has a lot of flaws and there are still several sections I haven't worked thru in depth, but I wonder if the edits that have cleaned up the article somewhat go toward reversing the deletion opinions?FeatherPluma (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst merge to MammaPrint. The product and the company appear to have gotten significant news coverage, for example from the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. Some of these links need to be cited in the article to help demonstrate notability. And in fact it might actually help if some of those non-helpful citations were deleted, e.g., press releases and journal articles. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have followed thru on your suggestions to the extent consistent with a gentle developmental edit approach. However, I have no objection to more radically removing some non-helpful citations. Only so much is feasible at one time tho.FeatherPluma (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to MammaPrint - fails WP:CORP, product can be notable without company being notable. The article is a pure puff piece, with a lot of references that dodn't even mention the company (but do mention the product) etc. This is straight forward case of not understanding that notability is not inherited and possibly of WP:COI/WP:NOPAY issues. --Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2011 (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.