Talk:Verve Therapeutics

This article was nominated for deletion on August 5, 2021. The result of the discussion was delete.

NORG?

Firstly, let me say, I wasn't the one who merged VERVE-101 into this page, and I'm not 100% sure that was the right thing to do. Secondly, I'm not sure how you're arriving at your "any in depth coverage is of the product not the company". It strikes me as though a lot of the sources are both about the product AND the company. Of course, with any new invention, there are frequently articles that discuss the invention and the inventor in similar measure. My feeling is that articles of that kind grant both notability even if they more directly cover just one. Thirdly, there's a lot of content here that wouldn't be appropriate to have in an article about the product, but would be approrpriate in an article about the company. For instance, where should information about this drug coming out of Boston go? Fourthly, having looked at a lot of examples of startup biotech companies launching "first in class" drugs, I think we've generally made an article about the company first, then only had a separate page for the drug if/when it became a product. I don't think this is a written rule, so admittidly this is very much a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. Fifthly, I appreciate this got AfD'd as "too soon" in 2021, but my sense is that coverage has expanded since then. Finally, there are bunch of other sources (e.g. [1], [2], [3],[4],[5]) which do seem to more directly cover the company. I think we're pretty clearly hitting WP:NORG, if not WP:GNG. Appreciate your thoughts on this. NickCT (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norg is a stricter standard than GNG. For example in link five the only coverage of the company per se is "The company, Verve Therapeutics, was cofounded by a trio of prominent researchers with expertise in cardiology and genetics, including the University of Pennsylvania’s Kiran Musunuru. Based in Cambridge, Mass., Verve has secured $58.5 million in Series A financing, led by GV (formerly Google Ventures)." and "Other founders of Verve include Sekar Kathiresan and J. Keith Joung, both professors at Harvard Medical School. Kathiresan will serve as chief executive officer, while Joung is strategic adviser and Musunuru is chief scientific adviser." this source would not be counted towards norg because it says nothing about the company that can't be found in press releases, ergo no intellectual independence. (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the GenEng source "coverage of the company"? It covers the history of the company's actions.... that seems like coverage of the company.

I think we'd agree that press releases aren't reliable sources, and that simple reguritations of press releases don't work towards notability. That said, I'm not sure it follows that coverage from a reliable source doesn't count towards notability if the information provided can be found in press releases. For instances, if Company X says in a press release "We're building a flying car", then the New York Times publishes an article saying "Company X is building a flying car", you wouldn't say the NYT coverage doesn't count towards notability.

Also, my understanding of the notability rules is that a subject must meet WP:GNG or the more specific notability guideline. Not WP:GNG and the more specific notability guideline. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NORG is different than other SNGs in that an article about a company / organization is required to meet NORG, regardless of whether it meets GNG. Additionally, "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject."

The hypothetical New York Times article would only count towards the notability of the company if it includes independent analysis/review/evaluation etc. that cannot be found in the flying car company's website or press releases. Additionally, if the company's sole product was a flying car and independent analysis was focused on the car rather than the company, I would advocate creating an article about the car and merging the company article there. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re "an article about a company / organization is required to meet NORG, regardless of whether it meets GNG" - I don't think that's true. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Alternate_criteria_for_specific_types_of_organizations - "Organizations are considered notable if they meet ... the general notability guideline".

re "Additionally, if the company's sole product was a flying car and independent analysis was focused on the car rather than the company" - I think with all things this probably depends on the depth and breadth of coverage. If there were one or two articles covering the focusing on the car and mentioning the company, then yeah, I'd say you're right. If there were a 1,000 articles, then probably both the car and company are notable. NickCT (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the number of articles that are published, but whether they have significant, intellectually independent coverage of the company itself. (t · c) buidhe 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.... I think both quality and quantity are clearly relevant. A company w/ coverage in just NYT is inherently less notable than one with coverage in NYT, WaPo and LATimes, even if all the coverages are equally signicant and intellectually independent. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That hypothetical company does have significant and intellectually independent coverage in multiple sources, so it would be notable. However, a company that receives coverage in NYT, WaPo and LATimes, but whose coverage is not both significant and intellectually independent, is not notable. (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]