Talk:BiondVax

Contested deletion

Um. So how is this deletion "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance"? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It's holding up a page move. Any promotional issues with the draft page can be corrected easily but it meets WP:LISTED with substantial RS coverage. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Page was extensively reviewed and revised in Draft space by unrelated editors. NASDAQ listed company notable per WP:LISTED. There is no promo language left and it is well sourced. All kinds of COI editors edit pages on Wikipedia - it's allowed and it's been disclosed properly. Legacypac (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Contested CSD: Company profile not subject to Medical criteria. Subject to WP:NCORP and WP:LISTED as a NASDAQ company. If you want to delete take to AfD or edit out the offensive material. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Legacypac Companies looking to get purchased or be validated in the eyes of potential partners abuse WP as a vehicle for visibility and self-promotion. The sourcing here is horrible (for us) - please actually look at them. They are however very typical for somebody doing PR. There could perhaps be a page in WP on this company but it would need to be written from scratch, as there are almost no refs here that are OK. You should perhaps review the updated WP:NCORP guideline with respect to references - the community has clarified and raised standards for sourcing about companies. Jytdog (talk)

(Edit conflict)

Sources

1 Zacks - financial analyst. Goes to Notability - 100% independant 2. NASDAQ 100% independent 3. https://www.weizmann.ac.il/immunology/sci/ArnonPage.html Respected research institute - originof the technology but 100% independent of the company 4. and 5. Company website confirming company claims 6. Trade news source - indepoendant covers many companies, products etc 7. Company letter confirming what company claims 8. Bloomberg 9. Independant but link broken today 10. Company site confirms management 11. Bloomberg 12. Researchgate. Not a good source 13. RS Globes in Israel 14. NASDAQ 15. European Investment Bank - reliable EU sponsored organization independantfrom company . 16. Globes again. RS. News story 17. Vaccine - scientific journal 18. Journal of Autoimmunity - again independant 19. A scientific paper 20. YEDA listing, independant of company

I'd already reviewed the sources, which from your comments you seem to have not done. Per WP:LISTED and that this page factually and non-promotionally covers a NASDAQ company I'd suggest taking your zeal against spam somewhere there is real promo and spam. I can point you to some areas if needed.

I've also added some additional sources including the Times of Israel and SeekingAlpha a highly respected financial site.

--Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

your analysis shows that there are insufficient independent refs with sigifnificant to discussion to meet NCORP, by miles.

The scientific papers are by the company. Not what we want for content about the company's products. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

seekingalpha is a stock-flogging garbage source. Holy cow. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL you might want to read up on Seeking Alpha and you are wrong about the independant coverage. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL?! I hope you are not citing that crap regularly. Posters use it to drive stock prices up and down; it is manipulative garbage about making money and not a source for acceped knowledge about the world. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not CSD able

Page survived it's most recent deletion discussion as noted above. CSD is invalid. Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That was in draft space which is not mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it was on the page largely as placed in mainspace. Another source from 2014 http://www.thetower.org/1173-israeli-company-receives-more-patents-for-its-universal-flu-vaccine/ Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Legacypac (and came to this article completely at random in the G11 backlog). AfD is the only answer when editors in good standing disagree so strongly over an article. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Request edits / updates October 7, 2018

I'm COI so as recommended I will leave suggested edits/updates here for other editors to consider:

1. A pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of M-001, the Company's universal flu vaccine candidate, began recruiting participants in Europe in August 2018 . The trial will test clinical efficacy of M-001 in protecting against any and all influenza strains (including Type A and B).
2. BiondVax headquarters is now located in Jerusalem (not Ness Ziona)
3. In September, 2017, BiondVax completed a $10m secondary raise on Nasdaq
4. A Phase 2 trial in the USA of M-001, sponsored and conducted by the US NIH/NIAID began in May 2018 and

Thank you --WanderingJosh (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Should the "Company Management" page topic be kept?

I recently edited this article, in which I removed several sentences of self promotion under the Company Management/Management Team section. However, after editing it, I was wondering if this section is useful to the content of the article. The article itself has no sources whatsoever, which is another thing entirely, but it seems that the "Company Management" section was originally placed there as a promotion vehicle for several executives of this company? Is it really needed? Should it be removed? Zachinquarantine (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)