Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActoGeniX

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 redirect to Lactococcus lactis. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ActoGeniX

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for pharmaceutical company. Multiple use of trademarks. No approved products. Various medical claims are made based upon individual journalarticles, that do not meet MEDRS standards. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

- - I have bundled ActoBiotics with this. Created by same editor, equally as non-notable and promotional. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that on 17 April 2017 ActoBiotics was added to this nomination page and the AfD template was added atop that article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note that this company doesn't exist anymore - nobody cared after the spammer did their thing. was acquired in 2015 Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lactococcus lactis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that makes sense to me also. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed therapeutic agent is only in phase 1 trials in humans. Not worthy of an article. May not pan out. If it does, then later a mention in a more general article on oral bio-pharmaceuticals in general or the Lactococcus article might be appropriate. JuanTamad (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2017 (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.