Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evogene

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Evogene}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Evogene}})

lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources, making it difficult to verify its notability per Wikipedia’s guidelines for companies. Loewstisch (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Lack of adequate sourcing demonstrating significant coverage from reliable sources. Madeleine (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Did you look for sources in Hebrew? There are plenty of in-depth sources out there! gidonb (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Constant coverage in Israeli and international media. AfD is clearly focused on the weak referencing at Enwiki, however, per WP:NEXIST: {{tq|Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article}}. It's written in bold in the notability guideline, so we should not miss. Specifically, more sources are only one click away at the Hewiki article. Doing the due diligence needed for an AfD, many of the Evogene articles contain SIGCOV, for example [https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001419800][https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001261233][https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001221598][https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2011-01-19/ty-article/0000017f-ecce-ddba-a37f-eeeef3eb0000][https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2010-09-06/ty-article/0000017f-e175-d7b2-a77f-e377e5330000][https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2010-07-08/ty-article/0000017f-e51d-d9aa-afff-fd5ddd8f0000][https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2009-05-20/ty-article/0000017f-db79-db5a-a57f-db7bcea90000]. And that is just a few articles in two leading Israeli newspapers. There is much more. There is not even a beginning of a case for deletion. gidonb (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: The sources provided by gidonb are enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep sources above look like strong non-routine coverage in two major national newspapers. Rusalkii (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete No they are not strong non-routine coverage in two major national newspapers. One is a profile and one is a press-release. Both fail WP:SIRS. It is a listed company and they usually get a pass but there is no coverage on this company. On the refs above:
• Ref 1 https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001419800 This is a conversation with the ceo. It fails WP:ORGIND.
• Ref 2 [https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001261233] This is a from a press-release and its not independent. It fails WP:SIRS
• Ref 3 [https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2010-09-06/ty-article/0000017f-e175-d7b2-a77f-e377e5330000] This is failed acquisition news. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
• Ref 4 [https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2010-07-08/ty-article/0000017f-e51d-d9aa-afff-fd5ddd8f0000] This is a from a press-release. It is not independent. WP:SIRS
• Ref 5 [https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2009-05-20/ty-article/0000017f-db79-db5a-a57f-db7bcea90000] This is another interview with Habib. It fails WP:ORGIND

I might have missed a reference but the paper is known as heavy user of primary sources and press-releases. There is a no secondary source here that passes WP:NCORP. All the information that has been presented comes straight from the mouth of the ceo, Habib. Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• Weak delete: After reading Scope_creep's critical assessment and re-reading the sources, I have to say I mostly agree, except that [https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001261233 this source] and [https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2009-05-20/ty-article/0000017f-db79-db5a-a57f-db7bcea90000 this source] contain significant background information with unclear independence. Regardless, the presented sources don't seem to contain enough clearly independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ORGSIG. This correctly rules out inherent notability and goes on to state that {{tq|if the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable}}. The article as written is like a press release, making unsubstantiated claims on the company's behalf. It fails WP:V as these claims are unsourced. The key word in all this is independent, as noted by both {{u|Loewstisch}} and {{u|Scope creep}} above. It is true that the newspapers have no direct connection with Evogene, and are independent in any commercial sense. What matters is their coverage of Evogene, because that is not independent if it was all provided by Evogene. We do not have significant independent coverage. Spartathenian (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This reference : [https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001261233] is from a press-release. I can't see the second one. scope_creep^Talk 09:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Hi. Neither can I—the Adblocker kicks in. As for the first one, they're just repeating what Haviv has told them, so the coverage isn't independent. Spartathenian (talk) Spartathenian (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I was commenting on references 2 and 5 from your assessment. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The article is currently in terrible shape. But I find the company having decent coverage in English as these examples: [https://www.israel21c.org/new-collaboration-shows-war-hit-biotech-company-is-moving-on/][https://www.timesofisrael.com/evogene-subsidiary-nabs-9-1m-deal-for-supply-of-castor-seeds-for-biofuel-production/]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Evogene is listed on both the Nasdaq and TASE, and meets notability (WP:GNG, WP:NCORP). Since the AfD was opened, I’ve worked to address concerns around sourcing and promotional tone. The article now cites multiple sources including Bloomberg, Nasdaq, TASE, and The Times of Israel (x4) (WP:RS), and includes solid coverage of Evogene’s technology and partnerships. These include collaborations with Google Cloud, IMAmt (Brazil), Embrapa (Brazil), and investment from Monsanto (US). This is no longer a stub or borderline case. The company clearly meets notability, and deletion would go against WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@HerBauhaus: The Nasdaq source is a press release, and the Bloomberg and TASE sources are entries in a directory. These sources are definitely not independent, significant coverage that can satisfy WP:NCORP. It's less obvious whether the The Times of Israel sources satisfy WP:SIRS, but I would say no because they are entirely based on company announcements. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@Helpful Raccoon: I agree that the Bloomberg and TASE entries confirm the company’s public status and aren’t relied on to establish notability. Likewise, the Nasdaq source is a press release and plays no central role in the notability argument. The case rests on SIGCOV in multiple articles from The Times of Israel (x4), Jerusalem Post (x3), and Haaretz (x1), all WP:RS. These cover Evogene’s international partnerships, clinical trials, public R&D funding, and strategic deals across more than 15 years, going well beyond trivial or routine mentions. On WP:SIRS, several TOI pieces include analysis and context, not just regurgitated PR. Per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of sources, not whether they were cited at the time of the AfD. The references are now there and meet both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's where we disagree; I believe that the articles are in fact regurgitated PR. Ignoring how many of these sources are about subsidiaries of Evogene, not Evogene itself (and notability of the main company is not inherited from its subsidiaries), practically all the information here comes from company announcements. Going over the TOI sources: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-agri-tech-firm-weeds-out-food-insecurity/ Source 1] is based on [https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/02/24/709144/32507/en/Evogene-Introduces-Biology-Driven-Ag-Chemical-Discovery-Platform.html press relesase 1], [https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-evogene-to-develop-insect-resistant-cotton-with-brazilian-seed-grower/ source 2] is based on [https://www.globenewswire.com/fr/news-release/2018/07/17/1538162/0/en/Evogene-and-IMAmt-Enter-a-Collaboration-in-the-Field-of-Insect-Resistance-Traits-in-Cotton.html press release 2], [https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-brazil-israeli-perfected-castor-used-for-biofuel/ source 3] is based on [https://evogene.com/press_release/evogene-subsidiary-embrapa-cooperate-advancing-castor-cultivation-brazil/ press release 3]. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/evogene-subsidiary-nabs-9-1m-deal-for-supply-of-castor-seeds-for-biofuel-production/ Source 4] isn't based on a preexisting press release that I can find, but it is still "regurgitated PR" because it comes entirely from a company announcement and information provided by the CEO. Similarly, the three Haaretz articles just repeat company announcements that Evogene has "allied" with some other company, without any clearly independent analysis. (Press releases often contain context and analysis - the presence of context does not necessarily mean the coverage is independent.) As for the Jerusalem Post pieces: [https://www.jpost.com/health-science/genome-editing-ai-consortium-approved-by-israel-innovation-authority-630179 source 1] does not contain significant coverage, [https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/article-714341 source 2]'s coverage of the subsidiary comes entirely from a discussion with the CEO, and [https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/tech-and-start-ups/article-725451 source 3] is a routine funding announcement. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Absolutely! No strong case for deletion has been made. gidonb (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC) 14:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: The claim that The Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and Haaretz are simply publishing PR is not supported. These are established Israeli news sources and are not flagged at WP:RSPSOURCES. Per WP:RS and WP:BURDEN, it is not enough to assert PR, specific evidence is required. Several of the cited articles provide context, analysis, and coverage of government programs and international collaborations. Coverage of subsidiaries is also relevant when there is clear overlap in areas such as leadership, platforms, or strategic direction. Per WP:NEXIST, notability depends on the existence of sources, not the state of the article at the time of nomination. HerBauhaus (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep: After some more digging, I found that Evogene's website lists coverage from [https://evogene.com/investor-relations/analyst-coverage/ independent analysts]. I'm unable to find the analyst reports directly, but there's some articles that show the existence of reports: [https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/alliance-global-partners-initiates-coverage-of-evogene-evgn-with-buy-recommendation], [https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/evogene-price-target-lowered-to-6-from-11-25-at-alliance-global-partners-1034453207], [https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/evogene-evgn-receives-a-buy-from-lake-street-1033211837] To be clear, these stories do not contain SIGCOV, but they show the likely existence of SIGCOV. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.