Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angiosplice

:{{la|Angiosplice}} ([{{fullurl:Angiosplice|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angiosplice}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Company's only verifiable claim to fame is a small award they won--in a competition organized by Cambridge students. After pruning the article (there were some references, but they were to journal articles on the topic, not to anything remotely related to the company) it became clear to me that there was no verifiable claim to notability here. No results whatsoever in Google News, Google Scholar, or Google Books. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I am new to wikipedia and may have missed its purpose, if it does breech your terms of use I will remove the article myself today. I personally feel a new company aiming to cure cancer and save sight is a company that the public deserves to know about. I also understand that these claims need to substantiated.

I fear Drmies has misunderstood AngioSplice's 'claim to fame'...and indeed the novel scientific basis of the company. As an academic independent to AngioSPlice I should try and explain.(I must tread carefully for legal reasons)

Dr Nowak is a co-inventor on a patent originating from the work done at Bristol university on the discovery of a completely new growth factor: VEGF-A165B and the therapeutic manipulation of the splicing machinery that switches these pro to anti angiogenic isoforms. An anti angiogenic isoform of VEGF-A in itself was a large scientific discovery; the ability to manipulate the ratio of pro to anti was even bigger. This is reflected by the impact factor of the related journals. Dr Nowak has worked with this team for five years and intends to continue his research at Cold Spring Harbour Labs in NY. This work which forms the corner stone of Angiosplice's IP estate and its two lead drugs stems from these publications in over 5 world recognised journals (two of which Dr Nowak is PI) including the Nature papers referenced. They are DIRECTLY relevant to the company. The most relevant publications (which I think Drmies is looking for) have not been included for obvious reasons, you can not publish novel art until a patent has been filed, and AngioSplice has several. AngioSPlice's Scientific advisor board includes KOL: Academic and Clinical Professors in pharmacology, molecular biology, ophthalmology and Renal Medicine from world class instructions including the Universities of Cambridge, MRC LMB, Bristol and Imperial College and The SABs are PIs on all the referenced and other relevant papers DIRECTLY relating to the company.

In addition the patent application and the journal publications predate the founding of AngioSplice Ltd. so it is not surprising the company is not acknowledged in these papers. Further papers due to be published in 2010 will be funded by and acknowledge AngioSplice.

It is true AngioSplice was acknowledged by the University of Cambridge as the best technology company to spin out of the university in 2009 (Several previous winners are represented well on wikipedia), this is however not its claim to fame. A better reflection of its success would be the level of interest from some of the largest life science VC companies and seed investors (Interest, for obvious reasons that can never be released into the public domain) this relationship has enabled AngioSplice to proceed to pre-clinical pilot studies with two of its leads drugs at labs spread across three continents.

Sadly as a Cambridge colleague, not involved directly with AngioSplice I am not the best person to tackle Drmies statement. But I am sure the founders would be very interested to know Drmies academic interest and business pedigree. May I suggest contacting Dr Harmsworth King or Dr Nowak directly, their emails can be found on www.angiosplice.com.

I hope this addresses some of the concerns and helps Drmie understand some of these more complicated topics.

bw

Brad Keely

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.118.176 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 July 2009

• Mr. Keely (and as it happens I am a "sir," but please don't think only humans of the male persuasion edit Wikipedia), we look for verifiable information supplied by sources in print or on the internet. None of those could be found. The organization's intentions, whether good, evil, or indifferent, are irrelevant in determining notability. If the company becomes notable in the future, that is, if the press starts reporting, if book studies appear that tout the company's products, etc., at that time notability will be easy to prove. I would refer you to WP:N. If things cannot be published because they are still in development, it would stand to reason that it is too early to claim encyclopedic notability. Thank you for your commentary, Drmies (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If sources can be supplied which back up the statements made by the company's website on their "novel approaches," I might retract this vote. I cannot yet find any sources of such, though. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• keep. The proposition of an anti-angiogenic isoform of VEGF-A is extremely well documented, please see the first eight hits from google scholar below. At present NO therapy utilises the anti angiogenic isoform of VEGF-A165b as a therapeutic target and absolutely no one utilises the ratio between the two isoforms (AngioSPlices novel approach). Avastin the VEGF market leader is a monoclonal Ab that mops up both pro and anti angiogenic isoforms thereby eradicating the positive effects of the anti-angiogenic isoforms and the pro angiogenic isoforms alike.
• http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/20/3487
• http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v97/n2/abs/6603839a.html
• http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v8/n11/full/nrc2505.html
• http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ArtikelNr=177614&Ausgabe=243025&ProduktNr=228541
• http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/fon.09.33
• http://ajprenal.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/4/F767
• http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/64/21/7822

  AngioSplice’s novel approach is a proprietary method of altering the ratio of pro to anti angiogenic isoforms. Instead of using exogenous GH and Ab to modulate the cytokine cascade AngioSPlice manipulates the endogenous mRNA splicing machinery. There is plenty of research substantiating this approach but for reasons mentioned it is not in the public domain yet. The lead drugs target splicing machinery of the anti angiogenic isoform directly by a.) administrating a protein kinase inhibitor (which has already been produced and tested in vivo) to prevent phosphorylation of the relevant splicing machinery and a antisense oligonucleotide that enables exon skipping (both have already been manufactured with good efficacy in vivo data). As of July 2009 they are not drafted in a patent application and therefore can not be published as this would make them prior art and worthless, so I’m afraid you will not find papers directly referencing them until (hopefully 2010)

  I really can’t explain it any more simply, I feel I’ve said too much legally and you really must contact the company directly if you have further concerns. I hope you don’t as this is a promising young company with some very bright people attached who are working towards some important goals. BK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.118.176 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

:No, sorry--we don't have to contact the company; the company needs to be notable. If the novel approach is notable, that should be apparent from, for instance, media coverage. The notability of VEGF-A is not in question here, see Vascular endothelial growth factor A. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir (btw its Dr Keely, but who really minds in cyber space!!)

I have made amendments to the references, that to me and my colleagues seem to offer a simple straight forward case of notability for ANgioSPlice and VEGF-Axxxb

Just to clarify it is the antiangiogenic isoform of VEGF-A (already notable) called VEGF-Axxxb that is newly notable (I notice there is no wiki page), I find it strange the editors prefer referenced media coverage (Drudge, news of the word, Hello and such)as apposed to peer reviewed scientific journals. Perhaps Wikipedia should remain a fount of knowledge on chicken fried bacon and claw boys claw and leave science to the scientists. We appreciate how tough your job must be and are grateful for your feed back, some interesting aspects of wiki that we weren’t aware of and shall pass up the chain.

bw

James, Arjun and Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradkeely (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank your for your interest in my work. Further response on talkpage--this is no longer relevant to the AfD discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• A deeply unhappy delete. Dr. Keely is absolutely correct that "a new company aiming to cure cancer and save sight is a company that the public deserves to know about." I wish him the best of luck in developing a cure and publicizing his efforts. But Wikipedia is not a billboard, and User:Drmies' nomination appears well-taken. I just don't see evidence that Angiosplice "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources [that are] ... reliable, and independent of the subject" as WP:COMPANY requires. I would strongly encourage User:Bradkeely to find and add such coverage to the article, if it exists, because I would truly love to change my vote.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Simon, I hope you will believe me when I say I didn't nominate this lightheartedly or haphazardly--I simply was not able to find any sources in the usual news outlets, books, and scholarly publications. There is plenty of stuff, as suggested above by Bradkeely, on the therapy and its potential, but not on the company, except for that single Cambridge award. Of course, as a fan of Karl Popper, I will be more than happy to be proven wrong, and I'm sure you tried! Drmies (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely - I didn't mean to suggest that the nomination shouldn't have been made, you're absolutely right as to notability.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: We are few of us scientists, and our grounds to debate or challenge the science involved are close to nil. The criteria to decide if a company is notable or not, however, are well-established and fairly straightforward. This company fails of those criteria and the article fails to satisfy WP:V. It is not enough for the article's proponents to debate how important this company might be in this particular scientific field. What they must do to save the article is come up with sources that satisfy WP:RS on the company (not on the science involved), and to that end, I strongly recommend that they read up on appropriate Wikipedia policy first.  Ravenswing  07:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• keep. Many thanks guys, I greatly appreciate all of your advice. Out of interest if two USPTO patents were included, (one pending and one granted) owned by AngioSplice with IP covering the list of publications and research previously mentioned would that reflect Notability? Or would the patents have to be written up in the The Times or the Daily Enquirer as the ‘next great cure’? bw brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradkeely (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Patents are self-published: the entire contents of the specification are written by the inventor('s legal team). Unlike a magazine or newspaper, the patent office has zero discretion over whether or not the patent application is published. The inventor or his/her assignee can even have the patent published if the application is rejected (a strategy that is popular for sabotaging the competition by creating prior art.) Therefore, they're no more useful for this purpose than a company's own website or press releases. The patent (or anything else written by the company) would have to receive some outside notice (such as fr could be wrong)om one of the newspapers you mention). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete From the article: "The AngioSplice™ approach promises to produce ..." They have no product yet. The award in the article is the essence of triviality. Two patents that are not yet exploited commercially is meaningless for notability. As for their derivatives of the growth factor: There are 6 published peer-reviewed papers on the altered growth factor listed, not all by them. Checking in Scopus, that's essentially all the present literature. It would justify an article on the subject--except that the material is already in the VEGF article, as part of the section "alternative classification." A number of different isoforms are listed there--it is, as they say, a very promising field and they are not the only people working in it. Details on these can be added, based on the literature. At some point, that page will undoubtedly have to be split as this line of work develops, but which ones will get the emphasis is altogether unclear at this time. There is no reason but their optimism that theirs' will be of practical or scientific importance. It's easier to decide about the company: like any other start-up, it is not notable till it actually has a product in some stage of formal testing or has attracted significant published interest in it as a company. Not yet. DGG (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, I met this group at a funding event in Cambridge (and must admit have interest in second funding round) and took the opportunity to start adding to wikipedia (something I've wanted to do for a while), I've added a few other completely off topic pages, which I hope were ok... ). I understand all of your points. Infact I often wondered how you policed an open access encyclopaedia and have been very impressed by this dialogue. This peer/ editor review method makes very much they sense. (I would only suggest having editors vet pages in their specialist topics). I guess my child like naivity was my down fall, a company like this, which from my own experience contain rather bright individuals doing exciting stuff but more importantly not horrible hard headed business men but scientists, who (without wanting to sound too Charles Urban just want their work to help people , I thought I would start, and try, (but most likely fail) to present them well online to the public and cancer sufferers across the world.

Once again many thanks and I hope to speak in the future RE better crafted articles

bw

BK

PS Is it now my responsibility to delete the page (Sorry for my ignorance)

• I restored the page blanking. Usually we let these debates run once they get started, and blanking the page makes it harder for people to see what the discussion is about. An administrator will do the actual deletion if that's the outcome of this discussion. Gigs (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

::Comment: Actually, Brad, Wikipedia's wise policy is not to restrict editors from vetting pages outside their specialist topics. Partly, this is out of our lack of ability to vet the qualifications of editors - as you can well imagine, many people claim expertise they wholly lack or is based on a brief internship or a college course. More importantly, it's because our rules aren't dependent on any such background. I don't remotely pretend to comprehend the science here, but that's not at issue: it's whether this company meets the consensus-based criteria for verifiability and notability. That much any literate person with a decent amount of skill at research can do. In any event, please do read through WP:PILLAR and the attached links for a grounding in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and good luck with your future articles.  Ravenswing  09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• keep. I agree great company but notability not met yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.5.166 (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

::I doubt that this actually means keep; the ed seems to be unfamiliar with our practices DGG (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• keep. FYI to quote Drmies 'the small award' that angiosplice won, five thousand sterling may be a small amount of prize money. But it was awarded by the university of Cambridge to recognize AS producing the best technological application/ company from the entire university in 2009. The university of Cambridge is consistently ranked second or third in the world.(Is that not notable??)http://www.topuniversities.com/university_rankings/results/2008/overall_rankings/top_100_universities/] (edit by 131.111.213.50}

:::Notability is not inherited. The University of Cambridge is notable, but that does not confer ipso facto notability on persons on whom it bestows a degree, a prize, or an award.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::::yes, that award is not to the best technology company, but the best new company of that particular year start by CU people--essentially an internal award. Their emphasis on promising new companies, but ours is not. Ours is on the ones that have achieved their promise. DGG (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't have the coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.