- 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. SNOW in July. Star Mississippi 17:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Innovative Bioresearch Ltd
[edit]- Innovative Bioresearch Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:SERIESA and WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The only WP:RS references are articles by, rather than about, the company. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not true. references are scientific publications, and news articles covering the research like this one from one of the most notable medical news outlets http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That'd make it WP:PRIMARY and hence ineligible. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We also added another very good reference from Aktien - Börse - Aktienkurse (wallstreet-online.de)
- 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) DaneDN (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Added additional sources:
- https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/
- https://www.tecnomedicina.it/archos-collabora-con-innovative-bioresearch-per-promuovere-safe-t-min/ DaneDN (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ·Do not delete. The INNBC cryptocurrency is very popular. I feel the need for more crypto experts to chime in before we can say this page should be deleted. Diodellecrypto (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's definetively articles about INNBC. You are not doing any digging.
- https://www.investorsobserver.com/news/crypto-update/innovative-bioresearch-coin-innbc-rises-66-69-outperforms-the-crypto-market-monday Diodellecrypto (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they don't. Most of these people seem only here for negative\meaningless comments, never provide any actual help searching sources. DaneDN (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_News_Today — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaneDN (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @DaneDN: The nature of the sources forms the key objection to WP:NCORP notability. Not only should the sources be reputable, but they must also operate with an independent fact finding voice. Also per WP:CORPDEPTH, the coverage should be non-routine. Sources based on what the company or its principals says about it, including interviews (e.g. Cryptotrends), are not considered independent. Announcements like wallstreet-online.de are not considered routine in nature, lacking necessary depth. That one also looks more like a press release. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read Medical News today disclaimer they claim this:
- "Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles. You can learn more about how we ensure our content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy."
- It is crystal clear that
- 1)Medical News today is a very reliable source.
- 2)They are independent - meaning they only publish news if they find them relevant - they do don't do paid nor promotional articles. They are absolutely a fact finding voice, moreso as they are a medical newsoutlet and must provide accurate medical news.
- 3)They used the peer reviewed academic research as a source of data, and any claim or announcement the compay have made woud have not been mentioned had it not be judged of significant impact in the field, newsworthy and legit.
- http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017.php DaneDN (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another source:
- https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/
- Please explain why this article by IRISH TECH NEWS is not valid. DaneDN (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you say goes against what is claimed by the journal policy. I suggest you to carefully review their eidtorial policy, specifically these points:
"At Medical News Today, we’re committed to providing trustworthy, accessible, and accurate information so our readers are equipped to care for their health and wellness. We use an established editorial process to ensure we’re providing the best possible information.
Our editorial process is the backbone of everything we do. We use this process to make sure that everything we publish meets our high standards.
Our team creates and edits every piece of content based on the four pillars of our editorial process:
1.learning and maintaining trust
2. keeping high journalistic standards
3. prioritizing accuracy, empathy, and inclusion
4. monitoring and updating content continually
These pillars ensure that our readers can always find the timely, evidence-based information they need."
- In addition to explain why is Medical News Today, one of the most important medical news outlets, not an indendent source, can you also explain why Wat is Innovative Bioresearch? - Newsbit is not not considered independent as well?
- Although Medical News Today makes all these statements about itself, the article reports about an effective product announcement (pilot study/progress report). The article is based entirely on what a company principal says. Regarding WP:CORPDEPTH, this definitely fails the depth of coverage test, even if it passed the independence test (questionable). The article is written in marketing-speak supported by primary and business buzz references. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, the article is based on what THE SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW ACADEMIC PUBLICTION SAYS. Without the peer reviewed publication as a source, they would never report any info. In fact, they cite the publication (Article: SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Possible Cell-Based Therapy for HIV: Results from a Pilot Study in Hu-PBMC BRGS Mice) as a source of info for the article itself.
- Now, Added another source:
https://irishtechnews.ie/the-rise-of-branded-cryptocurrencies-and-what-it-means-for-regulators/amp/
- Please explain why this article by IRISH TECH NEWS about Innovative Bioresearch, its biomedical research and its blockchain applications s not valid. DaneDN (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another source:
- ARCHOS collabora con Innovative Bioresearch per promuovere Safe-T min - Tecnomedicina
- Please explain why this independent source covering the activity of Innovative Bioresearch such as cooperating with big electronic companies such as Archos is not valid. DaneDN (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Technomedicina.it: Lacks CORPDEPTH as yet another company announcement composed of what the company says. Irish Tech News: a listicle entry that is a restatement of the company's noble goals. Not very deep and zero depth about the company. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 1)You fail to provide evidence that https://www.tecnomedicina.it is promoting Archos or Innovative Bioresearch. Such a bold claim needs some serious evidence. Where is the conflict of interest of Technomedicina.it by covering this news? In no way are they affiliated with Archos nor innovative Bioresearch. They covered the news of the cooperation between Archos and Innovative Bioresearch. They describe the deal, confirming that it is real, not just reporting what the companies say, but they explain to the reader what the deal is about. They also describe the kind of application Innovative Bioresearch is developing,using their own words and not reporting what the company says: "Innovative Bioresearch sta costruendo un’applicazione basata sulla tecnologia blockchain. Consiste in un database decentralizzato per i dati clinici e in una piattaforma sociale per la comunità sieropositiva dell’HIV. Consente a medici e pazienti di tutto il mondo di condividere e accedere a informazioni cliniche consolidate al fine di iniziare più rapidamente prove e trattamenti diretti." This sentence was wrote by the journalist and not by the company.
- 2)Irish Tech News is providing some bullet points to highlight what are the most significant developments of the company in the field. They made their own research before reporting this information. The fact that those goals are defined as "nobel" is a personal, independent, opinion of the journalist who wrote the article. They describe the medical initiatives operated by the company and conclude that those are "nobel, important humanitarian goals", nowhere is cited the company saying those goals are nobel, as this is a persoonal opinion of the journalist. In fact, one could argue that it is the opportunity to generate substantial profits by developing an HIV cure that is driving the company and not a humanitarian spirit as this is not a no profit company. They talk in enough deep detail of the blockchain application developed by the company, describing it with their own words and not reporting what the company says. DaneDN (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After reviewing coverage and all the back and forth above, RS coverage is sizzle, not steak, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. With almost zero depth of coverage about the company, the article is a crypto project masquerading as a company profile. The subject biotech with minor published research, that aims to be yet another "disruptive tech" company. Stenographic journalism doesn't add up to notability. As the nom states, Wikipedia is not Crunchbase. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although Medical News Today makes all these statements about itself, the article reports about an effective product announcement (pilot study/progress report). The article is based entirely on what a company principal says. Regarding WP:CORPDEPTH, this definitely fails the depth of coverage test, even if it passed the independence test (questionable). The article is written in marketing-speak supported by primary and business."
- This is the core of your wrong assumption, which seems due to a lack of education in science. Science is not based on opinions but hard facts. As such, it is not "what a company principal says" that is reported here, it is WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS SAY. The only part of the Medical News Today article where they mention the company announcing the publication of the study is in the beginnig "Innovative Bioresearch has announced the publication of a pioneering pilot study in the MDPI journal Vaccines". This is it. After that, they cover the results of the study. This means they summarize the study findings, using the study abstract as a source:
- "The animals were infected with a high input of HIV-1 LAI followed by weekly SupT1 cell infusions as an HIV treatment over a 4-week study period. Analysis of the results revealed some interesting tendencies in the generated data, such as significantly lower viral replication (~10-fold) and potentially preserved CD4+ T cell frequency at Week 1 in all animals treated with SupT1 cell infusion. Of note, one animal exhibited a sustained decrease in HIV replication and CD4+ T cell depletion (no virus detected anymore at Weeks 3 and 4), a result that may hold the key to future HIV treatments."
- Now, this is clearly sourced from the study abstract:
- "In the present work, the previous in vitro model was translated into an in vivo setting. Specifically, Hu-PBMC BRGS mice were infected with a high input of HIV-1 LAI (100,000 TCID50), and 40 million 30 Gy-irradiated SupT1 cells were infused weekly for 4 weeks as a therapy. Blood samples were taken to monitor CD4+ T cell count and viral load, and mice were monitored daily for signs of illness. At the earliest time point analyzed (Week 1), there was a significantly lower plasma viral load (~10-fold) in all animals treated with SupT1 cell infusion, associated with a higher CD4+ T cell count. At later time points, infection proceeded with robust viral replication and evident CD4+ T cell depletion, except in one mouse that showed complete suppression of viral replication and preservation of CD4+ T cell count. No morbidity or mortality was associated with SupT1 cell infusion. The interesting tendencies observed in the generated data suggest that this approach should be further investigated as a possible cell-based HIV therapy.'
- Medical News Today article is not based on "what the company principal says", it is based on what the results of the exeriments say. such results are not an opinion but the result of approval and validation by the peer review process. If the company principal would mention results different than what reported in the study, they would absolutely not report it. They would stick to what is reported in the peer reviewed study. DaneDN (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is also not PubMed nor Peer reviewed. As such, you have no scientific credibility to judge or talk about the biomedical research performed by the company and define it as "minor". If not, please provide the link to a review article published on a peer reviewed journal where you describe the research findings of the company as "minor" and such article has been accepted for publication. If the research has been published on peer reviewed scientific journals, it means the editors of such journals decided the research is relevant and scientifically sound enough to be published. You are not part of the peer review system, nor you have such qualification. Can you provide evidence of such qualifications? Please leave out any persomal bias and opinions and stick to the facts. In their main study, SupT1 Cell Infusion as a Possible Cell-Based Therapy for HIV: Results from a Pilot Study in Hu-PBMC BRGS Mice - PubMed (nih.gov), they report that "In the present work, the previous in vitro model was translated into an in vivo setting. Specifically, Hu-PBMC BRGS mice were infected with a high input of HIV-1 LAI (100,000 TCID50), and 40 million 30 Gy-irradiated SupT1 cells were infused weekly for 4 weeks as a therapy. Blood samples were taken to monitor CD4+ T cell count and viral load, and mice were monitored daily for signs of illness. At the earliest time point analyzed (Week 1), there was a significantly lower plasma viral load (~10-fold) in all animals treated with SupT1 cell infusion, associated with a higher CD4+ T cell count. At later time points, infection proceeded with robust viral replication and evident CD4+ T cell depletion, except in one mouse that showed complete suppression of viral replication and preservation of CD4+ T cell count. No morbidity or mortality was associated with SupT1 cell infusion. The interesting tendencies observed in the generated data suggest that this approach should be further investigated as a possible cell-based HIV therapy."
- You must admit that by defining peer reviewed HIV research as "a crypto project masquerading as a company profile" you are really grasping at straws. There is hard, undenaible evidence of the fact that Innovative Bioresearch is a pharma company that is performing HIV cure research. The company is also expanding their research using blockchain technology. But that does not change the fact that the company is producing actual peer reviewed science and as such it's a pharma\biotech company. The issue here is the lack of understanding that official science is only those present on peer reviewed publications. You fail to realize that any secondary source that is not backed by a scientific publication as a primary source cannot be considered legit. Now, you also fail to aknowledge that one of the most important medical news outlets, medical news today covered the news of such finding describing them with enough detail https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/310017 as well as that they would never cover such info had it not being included in a peer reviewed scientific article. The source is reliable, independent, and does not lack notability. Science is not about opinions but hard facts. Any interpretations, analysis, comment that is made by a newsoutlet about a scientific study will pose the danger of being misleading because it has not been validated by peer review. This is why most medical news outlets have the tendency to stick to the facts and report exactly what is reported in the peer review studies, without adding much personal analysis. Such analysis could seriouly hurt patients, as well as not being ethical to make important claims that are not being validated by peer review.
DaneDN (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (1) A decent source analysis would be more useful than a wall of text; (2) the article currently reads rather like a brochure for the company, to the extent I was verging on a TNT even if the company is notable; (3) too many of the sources are primary literature from the company's founder; (4) to the intelligent-but-uninformed reader, the article fails to explain why blockchain cryptocurrencies are related to pharma development; (5) the Medical News Today article, whatever their editorial policy, doesn't inspire confidence: it is written by (no name) on an invalid date, and states quite openly that it is based on a company announcement. I am teetering on the brink of a delete here. Elemimele (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 1)A big issue here is a fundamental lack of understanding of the peer review process and what is considered official science, which is evident by some comments. As such, the need for introducing some concepts in greater detail.
- 2)I am just reporting the official infomation sourced by the scientific publications and news articles found online, If you have any suggestion, instead of just trying to censor, vandalize, and delete information, contributing would be much more appreciated.
- 3)Such literature contain data that has been validated by the peer review process and as such it is universally accepted by the entire scientific community as part of the official scientific literature. This means that several peers, which are leading experts in the field, reviewed the paper and all the experiment data, requested modifications and\or revisions if needed, and every single statement, data, sentence, every single word present in the paper had to be approved by them, after being ultimately approved and accepted by an acamedic editor. Any claim that is made in the paper with regard to the data had to be approved as scientifically sound by the peer reviewers and editor before being accpeted. Therefore, this is not the result of the work of a single person, but ultimately the result of a process that involved the effort of several leading experts in the field, who contributed to the final revision form of the article. The academic Editor for this article, Diane M. Harper, is an internationally recognized virologist. Given that, each publication also features multiple references supporting the claims made by the author. Now, given that the company founder is a research scientist who firstly conceived this approach, it is quite normal that most of the scientific literature concerning the in vitro and in vivo testing of SupT1 cell infusion therapy is the result of academic publications made by the author. However, I also added publications from other authors on SupT1 cells now.
- 4)I was under the impression that this was explained in this sentence:
- "INNBC is serving as a digital payment system to access all the products and services developed by Innovative Bioresearch Ltd, as well as supporting their development. As such, INNBC is a "DeSci" (decentralized science) token, decentralizing several aspects of biomedical research, from the funding of the research itself, to the sharing of the scientific data." I added a further explanation.
- 5)The confidence is inspired by the fact that Medical News Today is sourcing the data from the peer reviewed study. As such, we know for sure they are not 'making things up" but rather reporting info that has been previouly validated by the peer review system. The journal itself is very reputable and even if the name of the author is not mentioned, that does not substract from its general good reputation as medical news outlet. In addition, the date is not incorrect, it is reporting the date of the source "Vaccines, doi:10.3390/vaccines4020013, published 26 April 2016." It is also not stated anywhere in the article that the source is based on a company announcement, the source is clearly provided at the bottom of the article as the peer review academic publication. The only official source for scientific data. As per their policy, "Medical News Today has strict sourcing guidelines and draws only from peer-reviewed studies, academic research institutions, and medical journals and associations. We avoid using tertiary references. We link primary sources — including studies, scientific references, and statistics — within each article and also list them in the resources section at the bottom of our articles." They clearly say they link the source at the bottom of the article, the peer reviewed paper is linked at the bottom. DaneDN (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so if I accept the medical news today article as a genuinely secondary commentary on the primary article released by Fior, that's one bit of evidence the company is notable, based on having produced one good idea a while ago. But we've still got an up-hill struggle here. For example, the NewsBit story says the company is based in the UK, but it's listed at Companies House as a dormant company with almost no assets. Maybe NewsBit is wrong, and it's massive in Italy? I still think it's iffy: yes, primary scientific literature is peer-reviewed, which we regard as making it reliable, but given the truly enormous quantity of primary science papers published per year, we can't guarantee notability to a company just because its founder has published some papers. We need at least to check their citation rate, which I haven't done, on the grounds that if they're highly cited, Fior himself might be notable. But if he founded a company based on a few papers before 2014, and the whole thing fizzled, then from a bio-science point of view, there is nothing to write about. I don't know enough to assess the relevance of cryptocurrencies. Elemimele (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the official info provided in the scientific papers, the company is registered both in Italy and UK. This paper was published in 2014 reporting this affiliation: "Innovative Bioresearch, Milan, Italy." The same company was also registred in the UK in 29 May 2018, according to company house. From my understanding and from the info reported on the official website, the company was started in Italy, then they expanded and opened a UK branch when they started their blockchain actvity in 2018. It is possible they perform the research activity in Italy, and the blockchain activity in the UK. If they decided to issue a crypto asset as an alternative to selling stocks, it would just make sense to keep the company dormant as they are not actively trading any conventional asset, just the token, which is not a security. With regard to the notability of a research paper, one way to misure that is the altmetric score. According to the altmetric score of their main research paper:
- "This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 715. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2022.
- Altmetric has tracked 21,480,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric."
- Being included among the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric strongly suggests notability for the research and as such for the company being mentioned for the research they performed. DaneDN (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, (1) Google scholar citation rates for the Jonathan Fior papers used to support the work are extremely low [1]. (2) Although the NewsBit article states the company is based in the UK, companies house says it has been dormant since its foundation and never had any assets greater than £100. Thus we're left with basically three sorts of sourcing: a handful of barely-cited research papers, a Medical News summary of one of those papers, and a NewsBit article that claims existence of a UK company that in reality doesn't exist. There's no sign of the company having any product except the Crypto thing (about which I defer to crypto experts) but from a biological/medical perspective I can't find any notability whatsoever. Elemimele (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Google scholar citation rates for the Jonathan Fior papers used to support the work are extremely low"
- This is not true. This paper alone has 23 citations, which is considered a very good number for a scientific paper. DaneDN (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 1)Are you ignoring on purpose the altmetric score because it does not fit your narrative?
- Altmetric has tracked 21,480,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric. Altmetric score is a very important parameter regarding notability. Research quality is a multidimensional concept. Citation is one parameter, which does not reflect several key dimensions of research quality. Even though what you say is not even correct, as just the paper on cancer by Fior has 23 citations, a very good number.
- 2)The official website says the company operative office is based in Italy and they only have a UK branch. In this interview with CEO he says the company is based in Italy (Interview with CEO Jonathan Fior, Innovative Bioresearch - YouTube) so it seems the NewsBit article has incomplete info. This is also confirmed by other sources reporting the company as an Italian company https://profit-hunters.biz/it/innovativo-bioresearch-revolyucionnaya-Baza-klinicheskix-dannyx/ Why are you ignoring such information? Also, the fact is that being dormant does not mean the company is not actively producing products (in fact, it is releasing many applications as it got featured among the top 5 start ups impacting Decentralized Research) it just means they are not trading company stocks. You need to learn the difference between equity and cryptocurrency. Even though the company set their equity value as £100 (which is purely indicative as it is only when a company goes public selling stocks that an official evaluation is done with an external institution like a bank providing the real value for the company stocks), this has nothing to do with the value of their cryptoasset, INNBC, which can have value of several million dollars, nor it indicates the company isn't actively developing products, especially given that, as reported by the official website and scientific papers, the company operative division is located and registered in Italy.
DaneDN (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It seems to me just a promotional article. I fully concur with all the motivations brought forward by various users for deletion. P1221 (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe so, why don't you contribute the article by editing and rephrasing it into what you believe is a more neutral description? Instead of just wanting to delete information as a priority, why not also putting contributing as an opportunity to improve the information reported on wikipedia. DaneDN (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator, I would like to change my proposal to delete and salt owing to the activity of a SPA with COI or undisclosed paid editing who is heavily promoting this article (DaneDN). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How exacly am I promoting the company? Am I suggesting to invest in this project? Absolutely not. I am just reporting the information I collected from various sources. Please provide some examples and suggestions as this article is open to any contribution to be improved. Provided that you are willing to do any contribution at all, which seems unlikely. DaneDN (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why you report incorrect information and assume they are correct, due to a lack of knowledge in a specific area, and think this is acceptable? For example, this paper alone by Fior has 23 citations, which is considered a pretty good number for a scientific peer review paper. To give some context:
- "How many citations is considered good?
- What is a good number of citations? With 10 or more citations, your work is now in the top 24% of the most cited work worldwide; this increased to the top 1.8% as you reach 100 or more citations. Main take home message: the average citation per manuscript is clearly below 10!'
- Yet, you say that "Google scholar citation rates for the Jonathan Fior papers used to support the work are extremely low". This is just plain flat out wrong. And it's just one example. DaneDN (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not wrong. Fior's top paper has 23 citations, his 2nd has 4. I invite you to compare this with a genuinely notable scientist; I used Ute Roessner, at [2]. Note that her top 20 papers range from 225 upwards. There is nothing magical or special about her example; almost all scientists who qualify as notable in Wikipedia terms will have multiple papers in the top 1%. But I'm not going to argue the toss indefinitely; this whole AfD is beginning to look like bludgeoning. I came into this with an open mind, looked around, and found no notability. Elemimele (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is just wrong if you claim that this is an "extremely low number of citations". It is just flat out wrong with respect to the average number of citations considered by the scientific community as a highly cited paper. The general consensus among scientists is that "the average citation per manuscript is clearly below 10".And Fior's paper has more than twice this number. There is nothing magical or special about claiming that scientists in the top 1% have papers with more than 200 citatioms, as this is not what we are dicsussing here. We are not discussing about including Fior among the most cited scientists on Wikipedia. We are discussing the fact whether with respect to the average number of citations for a scientific article, 23 citations is considered an extremely low number as claimed by you. And, it is not, according to the scientific community.
- Finally, I also invite you to consider that relevant studies in the field "found no statistically significant correlation between Wikipedia articles metrics (length, number of edits, number of incoming links from other articles, etc.) and academic notability of the mentioned researchers. We also did not find any evidence that the scientists with better WP representation are necessarily more prominent in their fields. In addition, we inspected the Wikipedia coverage of notable scientists sampled from Thomson Reuters list of ‘highly cited researchers’. In each of the examined fields, Wikipedia failed in covering notable scholars properly. "
- "Consequently, we establish that for a non-professional reader who turns to Wikipedia with an exploratory purpose of finding some prominent researchers in a field, the encyclopedia might be misleading, as it provides no reliable visual cues that might be a proxy of academic notability. We conclude that the absence of correlation between Scopus and Wikipedia metrics suggests that they measure different phenomena.'
- Which is why you should not ignore the scientific standard if you want to improve the representation of what is considered scientifically relvant on wikipedia. DaneDN (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that, the discussion here is not about the creation of Fior's wikipeda page, but whether Innovative Bioresearch as a company along with InnovativeBioresearchCoin (INNBC) as a cryptocurrency have notability. As such, you should not ignore all the sources added strongly indicating notability such as the company inclusion among 5 Top Web3 Startups impacting Decentralized Research DaneDN (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like good at first, but nope. wp:gng ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- also looks like a crypto scam and spam 2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 99% of cryptos are called scams. It is so trendy. But, actually, they are more legit than you, given that you are here anonymously, while they put a name of what they are doing. DaneDN (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @DaneDN: This crosses the line into personal attack territory. Anonymous IP editors are as welcome at AfD and on the Wikipedia project as the pseudonymously registered editors. AfD comments are weighed by basis in policy and editor experience. Questioning an editor's legitimacy for an opinion or calling an edit vandalism because you do not approve is not acceptable. Challenge the argument, not the editor. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This crosses the line into public defamation territory against the company. Claiming publicly that a company is "a crypto scam and spam" is a criminal defamation offence. And it can be punished by law. Protecting yourself against the law hiding behind anonymity does not make your activity as a wikipedia editor more legit, especially not more than a business that is not conducted anonymously as in the case of Innovative Bioresearch. DaneDN (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Scam: Unfair? Yes. Defamation of a crypto project? Good luck with that. Legally actionable? This isn't the venue. Besides, another part of WP:NPA is no legal threats. Spam: That's a label that looks increasingly applicable. You too are anonymous and Wikipedia policies grant the registered user more privacy protection than an exposed and traceable IP address. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling a business a scam\fraud means intentionally damaging its reputation. As such, it can be considered public defamation. You should not abuse the wikipedia privacy protection to commit a criminal defamation offence. DaneDN (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. See definition there of trivial coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails GNG, NCORP and reeks of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 09:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Also happy to salt and require going through AfC to recreate. Based on WP:NCORP and Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies). Uses INNBC as a reference which is a primary source. Adding in research papers by "Fior, Jonathan" which can also be seen as a primary source. Then there are the references that are routine coverage and you are left with sourcing that is insufficient. Gusfriend (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've read the discussion here and on Ingenuity's talk page and reviewed the sources. They're all problematic in one way or another; non-reliable, primary, press releases, just a whole bunch of noise but nothing worth being said. The article fails WP:GNG by virtue of lack of reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject, and fails WP:NCORP outright (especially when factoring in WP:NCRYPTO). - Aoidh (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2022 (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.