|
||
Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Your user page
Hi Ingenuity! I hope you're doing well and that you're having a great day! While I was handling Moonlol1's shenanigans and putting that user into a time-out corner, I noticed that they attempted to modify your user page in order to vandalize and add derogatory remarks to it. Also, upon seeing that edit filter log, I quickly drew the obvious conclusion that your user page isn't protected, which leaves it wide open for attacks and... unpleasantness.
I went ahead and applied indefinite semi-protection from editing, as well as indefinite full-protection from moving - to your user page. That will definitely make it a lot harder for bad-faith users to be able to do anything to it. ;-) Anyways, I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for keeping the place nice and clean, and I wish you happy editing! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ingenuity. Please forgive my aggressive edits from earlier today. I self-edited my nastiness, or so it appears 🤔. It just angered me that someone could be so utterly lazy, as to post an incorrect league (my alma mater's former league, mind you), without taking 2 seconds to check it....something they could have EASILY DONE ON WIKI!!! I was having a bad day also. Lol! Thanks, Knite Flyer Knite Flyer 2 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi
I've witnessed you've reverted the edit done on "Reverse Logistics".Could you please review manually and let it be posted? Ifrl (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ifrl: your edits added unsourced and promotional content. Please see Wikipedia's policies on promotional content and sourcing before readding any of that material. Thanks! >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 22:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Mindustry
Hello, Ingenuity. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mindustry, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Question
Why do you keep reverting my edits to the Hate group page? Your edits are entirely nonconstructive. I haven't taken out any of the right-wing hate groups from the See also section so why do you keep removing my references to left-wing hate? This is political censorship and you seem personally biased. --2A00:23C5:61B2:DE01:31F4:D2D4:B978:7BCC (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- A couple problems with that -- adding more groups to the See also section of "Hate groups" does seem like political bias. Before adding them, you should make a post on the talk page of the article and get consensus. Second, the See also section is already extremely long and should be trimmed down anyway, instead of adding more entries to the list. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
"More citations needed" for Relieving letter
You added the template "More citations needed" to Relieving letter. However, the article already has a citation for almost every sentence. Being the main author, I may be biased, but I still feel that a general "more citations" tag does not make sense. To be actionable, the missing citations should be detailed, so I removed the template.
If you feel there are still citations missing, please add "cn" tags, or hop onto the talk page. Thanks!
Sebastian (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hey @Sleske, the reason I added the "more sources needed" tag is because some of the sources aren't reliable. The first source is from Stack Exchange, which uses user-generated content. The second is an Indeed blog article, and the third also appears to be a blog article. It would be great if you could add more reliable sources, such as news articles from well-known sites. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Irene Parlby
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Irene Parlby you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hi Ingenuity. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
- Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
- If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
- Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Irene Parlby
The article Irene Parlby you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Irene Parlby for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edwininlondon -- Edwininlondon (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon thanks for reviewing it! Now to think of a good DYK hook... :) >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
My page was removed
Hello my name is Botswana. My page on The Organization was recently removed because it “wasn’t constructive “ or something like that. But The Organization is a real thing that is torturing people against their human rights. Please help me and all the people dealing with The Organization by putting my page back up.
Sincerely, Botswana Anti Organization (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Anti Organization: Wikipedia is not for you to raise attention for a cause. You promoted your own Discord server, which is against Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Deviate from manipulation
You knows that what you are doing is wrong, I will advice you to deviate from it. Okechukwufriday (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Okechukwufriday please stop adding unsourced content. You have been warned three times for doing so, but you continue to add more unsourced content. If you continue, you may lose your editing privileges. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Alton Chapman
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton Chapman, do you feel that a discussion is needed? I was about to delete that in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 because the article makes zero credible claims of notability. The author of the article appears to be an undisclosed paid editor trying to promote his clients. Given that all of the other articles the editor has created have been deleted (or draftified), I feel this one qualifies for speedy deletion, but the AfD discussion is the only thing holding it up.
No harm letting it play out though. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Anachronist I felt it was on the edge of being eligible for A7. At the time I AfD'd it I hadn't taken an in-depth look at the user's contributions so I didn't really suspect them of being a paid editor. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello Ingenuity,
- Backlog status
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
- Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
- TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
- Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}
, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
>NPP backlog: 11154 as of 02:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing
{{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page. - If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
- To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
- Notes
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 June 2022
- News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks
- In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down
- Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?
- Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, mass drafting bid pulled
- Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose
- Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed
- Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?
- News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals
- Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter
Oslo shootings
It is both regretable (2 deaths) and unfortunate for injuries. Not afraid to speak (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Not afraid to speak yes, it is sad that this happened, but Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, so we cannot insert our own commentary in the articles -- we have to stick with presenting the facts. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Iseult. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of new members of the 103rd United States Congress, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Iseult Δx parlez moi 05:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hey @Iseult, thanks for letting me know. I think that this does meet the notability guideline for lists, though -- the only requirement is that the subjects of the list are discussed in multiple reliable sources. The article right now only has a couple, but notability is judged on the existence of sources, rather than the ones currently in the article. I've found a few of them here: [1], [2] (this one isn't directly about the new members, but an overview of the Democratic Party in the same time period), and [3]. I'm sure there are more, since I wasn't searching for long. The same thing could probably be said of the 104th, 105th, 106th, etc. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Advice on going through articles for creation process?
Hi Ingenuity! The Candor (company) article was moved to draftspace given the conflict of interest I have (declared on my talk page).
I've been editing wikipedia for 10+ years but it's my first time submitting an article for creation and I want to make sure to do it right. Any advice on going through the process? I've also added multiple independent secondary sources to the article, including from the New York Times, Forbes, Business Insider, Venture Beat as well as primary sources like the SEC. David Chouinard (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @David Chouinard: before you submit you should check to make sure the article meets the notability guideline for companies. I don't think that's the case right now. Every source should be significant, independent, and reliable -- see WP:42.
- New York Times -- just a brief mention, so not significant
- Forbes -- also a brief paragraph, not significant
- Business Insider -- this is more in-depth, but it's an interview, so not independent
- Venture Beat -- this is better, but it's still more on the data collected by the company than the company itself
- Writing articles about companies is extremely difficult since WP:NCORP is harder to meet than the general notability guideline. When you feel the draft does meet NCORP, just click the "submit this draft for review" button at the top of the page. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 18:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:First 100 days of Joe Biden's presidency
Hello, Ingenuity. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:First 100 days of Joe Biden's presidency, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Irene Parlby
On 3 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Irene Parlby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Irene Parlby was one of The Famous Five, a group of women in Canada who fought for the right of women to be considered "persons"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irene Parlby. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Irene Parlby), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Unfair editing
That's unfair! That is not related to the generation. Millennial is denoting or relating to a period of a thousand years or denoting or relating to an anniversary of a thousand years. Do not confusing to Millennials because those people reaching young adulthood in the early 21st century and 3rd millennium. 112.200.24.15 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're mixing that up with a millennium, which is a period of 1000 years. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
innovative bioresearch ltd page
Can you point out what are the unreliable links in the Innovative Bioresearch Ltd page?. Most are from scientific articles published on GOV databse pubmed, along with the official company website and some news outlets articles. DaneDN (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN: all references must be independent, significant, and reliable. The four reliable sources aren't related to the company in particular. Almost all of the rest are the company's own website, which is not independent. Try finding more sources like news articles, and make sure you are familiar with the the notability guideline for companies. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 22:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are totally wrong. The scientific articles are all written by the company CEO as an author, and the company name is clearly indicated in the "author affiliation section". Please pay more attention and read more carefully the scientific papers:
- For instance;
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Fior+J&cauthor_id=25258653
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Fior+J&cauthor_id=27128948 DaneDN (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN if the articles are written by the company's CEO, then they are not independent either. Besides, the articles still aren't on the company itself. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 22:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The articles are scientific contributions in the field of HIV and cancer research. The company develops therapies for HIV and cancer. How can science not be independent? Peer review only allows scientific sound data to be published. DaneDN (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN: it doesn't matter how good the scientific articles are; they don't establish notability for the company because they're not about the company. Right now I don't see a single source in the article that meets WP:42 -- they're all either interviews (not independent), the company's website (not independent), or scientific articles by the founder (not independent or significant, since they're not about the company). >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- How can the scientific research published by the company not be related to the company itself? This is like saying that the results of the clinical trials produced by Moderna on the COVID vaccine are not related to the company itself. If you are talking about the scientific research performed by a company, the most reliable source are the scientific publications that have been validated by the peer reviewed process. DaneDN (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN like I said above: they don't establish notability because they're not independent. I don't see how the articles can be published by the company, either, since two of them were written in 2012 and 2013, before the company was even founded.
- One other thing: if you have a conflict of interest with the company, you must disclose it on your userpage. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- 1)The research performed by the company is based on the previous academic work perfomed by the company founder as research scientist. So when talking about the most recent HIV research performed by the company, one must mentions that such work is based on previous work performed in the field. We can add this detail in the page.
- 2)Now, going by your logic, the same could be said for the research published by Moderna that is referenced in the Moderna wiki page.
- Specifically:
- Moderna - Wikipedia
- "In July 2020, the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine candidate was shown to be immunogenic in a Phase I trial involving 45 volunteers aged 18–55" and they cited this scientific publication An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 - Preliminary Report - PubMed (nih.gov)
- 3)I don't have any conflic of interest with the company. DaneDN (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- So why is it fine to cite the scientific publications produced by Moderna's affiliated scientists when talking about their COVID vaccine, but it's not fine to talk about the scientific publications produced by Innovative Bioresearch scientists when talking about the HIV vaccine developed by Innovative Bioreserch? DaneDN (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN I never said the scientific articles can't be used as sources -- what I said is they can't be used to establish notability. On the Moderna page, for example, there are plenty of reliable, independent sources which cover the research and the vaccine itself. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. The " plenty of reliable, independent sources" you talk about are just articles reporting the results published in the scientific publications produced by the research performed by Moderna itself. Scientific publications are the ONLY trustable source of data to establish what can be considered legit science. In fact, the financial post itself would have absolutely no credibility to talk about science, if they don't cite che original scientific publication as a source. DaneDN (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, the peer review system is completely independent. This means that several of the leading experts in the field have reviewed the data before approving for publication in a scientific journal, the research must be relevant and scientific sound, or they will reject it. DaneDN (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN: scientific articles are primary sources. Wikipedia needs secondary sources -- for example, news articles covering the scientific research. From the primary sources guideline: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The entire "biomedical research" section of the page uses only primary sources. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- "news articles covering the scientific research" are not necessarily written by scientists. As such, they are not as much reliable as the scientific publicatons, so particularly when discussing the data, it is best practice to use the scientific papers as a source, or the reader may be misleaded by the possible incorrect interpretation of the data by a jourmalist. I already provided news articles covering the scientific research. DaneDN (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN: see WP:NCRYPTO. The one source you added (newsbit) shouldn't be used as a reference either. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why? DaneDN (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN: take a look at Wikipedia:Notability_(cryptocurrencies), it explains the rationale behind this. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- We removed it. So what about Medical News Today? They have nothing to do with cryptocurrencies. And it's one of the most important medical news outlets.
- http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN: take a look at Wikipedia:Notability_(cryptocurrencies), it explains the rationale behind this. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will add more sources shortly DaneDN (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As we previously discusssed, added another source, you cannot say this is not valid as it's form one of the most notable medical news outlets
- http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why? DaneDN (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN: see WP:NCRYPTO. The one source you added (newsbit) shouldn't be used as a reference either. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- "news articles covering the scientific research" are not necessarily written by scientists. As such, they are not as much reliable as the scientific publicatons, so particularly when discussing the data, it is best practice to use the scientific papers as a source, or the reader may be misleaded by the possible incorrect interpretation of the data by a jourmalist. I already provided news articles covering the scientific research. DaneDN (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN: scientific articles are primary sources. Wikipedia needs secondary sources -- for example, news articles covering the scientific research. From the primary sources guideline: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The entire "biomedical research" section of the page uses only primary sources. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, added another news article on the company, not interview. DaneDN (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- We also added another very reliable souce.
- Innovative Bioresearch Announces Publication of Pioneering Pilot Study Exploring SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Cell-Based Therapy for HIV in Humanized Mice - 26.04.2016 (wallstreet-online.de)
- Is wall street online not good enough? DaneDN (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN you should really read through WP:NCORP and WP:SERIESA (the latter is not a policy, but it's a good essay). Routine announcements from companies, like the one you just linked above, do not establish notability. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I added another source, Those big news outlets only report news from companies they consider established and notable. They are 100% indipendent. DaneDN (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN by "we" do you mean this account is being used by multiple people? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- No this account it is just used by one person. DaneDN (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is your account used by more than one person? DaneDN (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Having an account used by more than one person is against Wikipedia's policies. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN by "we" do you mean this account is being used by multiple people? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I added another source, Those big news outlets only report news from companies they consider established and notable. They are 100% indipendent. DaneDN (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN you should really read through WP:NCORP and WP:SERIESA (the latter is not a policy, but it's a good essay). Routine announcements from companies, like the one you just linked above, do not establish notability. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- How can the scientific research published by the company not be related to the company itself? This is like saying that the results of the clinical trials produced by Moderna on the COVID vaccine are not related to the company itself. If you are talking about the scientific research performed by a company, the most reliable source are the scientific publications that have been validated by the peer reviewed process. DaneDN (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN: it doesn't matter how good the scientific articles are; they don't establish notability for the company because they're not about the company. Right now I don't see a single source in the article that meets WP:42 -- they're all either interviews (not independent), the company's website (not independent), or scientific articles by the founder (not independent or significant, since they're not about the company). >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The articles are scientific contributions in the field of HIV and cancer research. The company develops therapies for HIV and cancer. How can science not be independent? Peer review only allows scientific sound data to be published. DaneDN (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DaneDN if the articles are written by the company's CEO, then they are not independent either. Besides, the articles still aren't on the company itself. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 22:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)