Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosetta

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prosetta

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm not sure whether this company is notable enough for an article. They solely conduct research and do not produce or sell any anything, so their revenue comes exclusively through investments and partnerships, but it isn't clear if their research has contributed to anything notable. Most secondary sources seem to be standard business press releases of their activities or company listings/databases, and the company has only rarely been mentioned independently. Their research also has a "too good to be true" kind of thing going on with some questionable premises, which may turn out to be legitimate but for the time being seem fringe and like every startup promoting the next best thing. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On a wiki-policy level, this does not have significant coverage in secondary sources, it only has passing mention in a very small handful of sources, many of which are promotional and not independent of the company, which is also a requirement of GNG. So it easily fails GNG. On a scientific level, this drug is no different from the many other small molecule drugs developed around COVID. 99% will fail in pre-clinicals. 99.9% will fail by the time RCTs come back. So this article very likely does not have a future. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, as someone who got a PhD developing antivirals and vaccines against emerging pathogens.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIRS. Lacks enough significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Probably too soon for its own article at this time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the comments above - no significant coverage indicating notability of the company.--Chartwind (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2021 (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.