Talk:Verve Therapeutics: Difference between revisions
Adding {{old AfD multi}} for prior AfDs related to this article. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/NewArticleAFDTagger |
→NORG?: new section |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|date1 = August 5, 2021 |result1 = '''delete''' |page1 = Verve Therapeutics |
|date1 = August 5, 2021 |result1 = '''delete''' |page1 = Verve Therapeutics |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== NORG? == |
|||
{{ping|User:Buidhe}} - Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verve_Therapeutics&diff=1200519810&oldid=1200518194 this edit]; |
|||
Firstly, let me say, I wasn't the one who merged VERVE-101 into this page, and I'm not 100% sure that was the right thing to do. Secondly, I'm not sure how you're arriving at your "''any in depth coverage is of the product not the company''". It strikes me as though a lot of the sources are both about the product '''AND''' the company. Of course, with any new invention, there are frequently articles that discuss the invention and the inventor in similar measure. My feeling is that articles of that kind grant both notability even if they more directly cover just one. Thirdly, there's a lot of content here that wouldn't be appropriate to have in an article about the product, but would be approrpriate in an article about the company. For instance, where should information about this drug coming out of Boston go? Fourthly, having looked at a lot of examples of startup biotech companies launching "first in class" drugs, I think we've generally made an article about the company first, then only had a separate page for the drug if/when it became a product. I don't think this is a written rule, so admittidly this is very much a [[WP:OTHERCONTENT]] argument. Fifthly, I appreciate this got AfD'd as "too soon" in 2021, but my sense is that coverage has expanded since then. Finally, there are bunch of other sources (e.g. [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/verves-in-vivo-base-editing-therapy-shows-human-proof-of-concept-data/], [https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/inno/stories/news/2023/06/06/gv-new-partner-issi-rozen.html], [https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/business/verve-raises-another-63m-develop-gene-editing-treatment-heart-disease/],[https://www.wsj.com/articles/verve-therapeutics-to-take-on-heart-disease-with-63-million-funding-round-11591869600],[https://www.inquirer.com/health/crispr-verve-cholesterol-gene-upenn-dupont-20190611.html]) which do seem to more directly cover the company. I think we're pretty clearly hitting [[WP:NORG]], if not [[WP:GNG]]. Appreciate your thoughts on this. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:29, 2 February 2024
 | This article was nominated for deletion on August 5, 2021. The result of the discussion was delete. |
NORG?
@Buidhe: - Regarding this edit;
Firstly, let me say, I wasn't the one who merged VERVE-101 into this page, and I'm not 100% sure that was the right thing to do. Secondly, I'm not sure how you're arriving at your "any in depth coverage is of the product not the company". It strikes me as though a lot of the sources are both about the product AND the company. Of course, with any new invention, there are frequently articles that discuss the invention and the inventor in similar measure. My feeling is that articles of that kind grant both notability even if they more directly cover just one. Thirdly, there's a lot of content here that wouldn't be appropriate to have in an article about the product, but would be approrpriate in an article about the company. For instance, where should information about this drug coming out of Boston go? Fourthly, having looked at a lot of examples of startup biotech companies launching "first in class" drugs, I think we've generally made an article about the company first, then only had a separate page for the drug if/when it became a product. I don't think this is a written rule, so admittidly this is very much a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. Fifthly, I appreciate this got AfD'd as "too soon" in 2021, but my sense is that coverage has expanded since then. Finally, there are bunch of other sources (e.g. [1], [2], [3],[4],[5]) which do seem to more directly cover the company. I think we're pretty clearly hitting WP:NORG, if not WP:GNG. Appreciate your thoughts on this. NickCT (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)