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 no consensus — almost the precise definition of it in fact. It is, as always, open to users to merge or redirect the article, either in line with WP:BB or a discussion on a relevant talk page. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

SHINE Medical Technologies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Despite a whole slew of references, this organisation is vapourware. It has produced no products, has no facilities, and the entire article confirms this. It might, if it is ever approved, begin some sort of production in 2018. Or it might not. WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies to this vapourware peddler. Fiddle Faddle 22:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep←. The company has gotten a considerable amount of press, as you can see from the references, and it has received commitments for well over $100 million in financing. It has also signed long-term supply agreements with major entities. It is true that production is not scheduled to begin until 2018, but it is expected to be the only American manufacturer, producing 1/4 of the world's supply, of these radioisotopes that are essential for surgery. So, I think that it is notable. BTW, anyone here who is familiar with initiating AfD's, check out this list that contains totally trivial information: Australia 2020 Summit participants. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment That is the most unusual use of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in a deletion discussion that I have seen for some time. If you think that list needs nomination for deletion please do it. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy.

No, your assumption is completely wrong. I never used such an argument. The two articles are unrelated and not similar in any way. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Commitments are just that, commitments. But it requires licencing and much else before it is anything other than vapourware. Even jovial comments on its talk page can be very easily interpreted to show this, and that is by supporters of moving the then Draft: article to main namespace. Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, the company is notable given the shortage of Mo-99 and their efforts / research to address that shortage. These efforts have been covered in the national publication Nature magazine and a cover story from Nuclear News (PDF), the magazine of the American Nuclear Society. At least 20+ million dollars in Federal funding has been given to them for development as well. [1] They are also supported by several US National Nuclear Research facilities as cited in the article. There is routine coverage, several articles each year, in the Wisconsin State Journal, second largest circulation newspaper in Wisconsin and the company has also been covered several times by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, largest newspaper in Wisconsin. Even if the facility is never constructed, I think the notability is in the process they developed. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 23:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I would further add to my previous response that the company does have a facility in Monona, Wisconsin, contrary to the nomination statement. It has produced a full-scale demonstration particle accelerator at that facility. [2] Since they are not licensed by the NRC, they can not create a reaction at this point, but Argonne National Lab demonstrated the SHINE's process for "production, separation and purification of molybdenum-99" and "confirms [the] new commercial method for producing medical isotope". [3] -- Dual Freq ( talk) 14:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 00:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 00:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Dual Freq ( talk) 01:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete or userfy. "SHINE was in the process of . . . " and "The company hopes to . . ." indicate that this article is probably too soon (if it ever is notable).-- Rpclod ( talk) 03:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have had some time to sample check the references, of which there appear to be a great number. Of the five that I sample checked, and I have only sample checked so far, 100% are regurgitated press releases and PR material, something those of us who have spent a lifetime in marketing can recognise at 50 paces. This smacks of WP:BOMBARD. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS. Doubtless there will be some. If I get the time I will do an analysis of the references, but analysing all 27 will just be busywork. This has escaped from the Draft: namespace approximately three years too early. There looks to be a great PR campaign about who has signed what with them, but this is not significant nor independent coverage. Fiddle Faddle 07:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Here is my analysis of the references in this permalinked version:

1. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Non-Power-Nuclear-Applications/Radioisotopes/Radioisotopes-in-Medicine/ is a single paragraph, hardly significant coverage. Borderline, tending to fail
2. http://host.madison.com/business/environmental-report-supports-shine-medical-s-plan-to-build-radioisotope/article_fabdf313-fe5a-529c-a6c4-b025f25aaeee.html Pass
3. http://medicalphysicsweb.org/cws/article/research/59368 Pass
4. http://www.nature.com/news/radioisotopes-the-medical-testing-crisis-1.14325 Pass
5. http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2012/05/08/morgridge-institute-shine-win-206m.html PR material, Fail
6. http://www.lanl.gov/discover/news-release-archive/2013/May/05.13-domestic-production-of-medical-isotope-mo99.php Press release. Fail
7. http://www.anl.gov/articles/argonne-confirms-new-commercial-method-producing-medical-isotope Press release. Fail
8. http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/archive/2014/Oct10-SHINE-funding-milestone.html Press release. Fail
9. http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=gregory&s2=piefer&OS=gregory+AND+piefer&RS=gregory+AND+piefer It’s a patent. Anyone can take out a patent. Patents are not references. Fail
10. http://mo99.ne.anl.gov/2011/pdfs/Mo99%202011%20Web%20Papers/S11-P2_Chemerisov-Paper.pdf interesting paper on SHINE. Needs verification of peer reviewed status. Jury is out on this one
11. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1107941 abstract. http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-13-28967 ought to be the reference. Needs verification of peer reviewed status. Jury is out on this one
12. http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/24000?p_begin=0 Press release. Fail
13. http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/23500 comes form PR NEWSWIRE! Good grief. Fail
14. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/deerfield-management-signs-125-million-200500957.html looks ok until you look at the “BUSINESSWIRE” heading. Press Release. Fail
15. http://host.madison.com/business/shine-signs-contract-with-lantheus-medical-imaging/article_812abe76-f5c3-58e4-92ef-371a1b67408e.html Press release. Fail
16. http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2012/jan/25/janesville-working-medical-isotope-maker-incentive/ Press release. Fail
17. http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2012/jan/25/janesville-working-medical-isotope-maker-incentive/ http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/download/a_954 three paragraphs on page 5 are a borderline passing mention. Borderline
18. The British Pharmacopoeia Commission (2015). British Pharmacopoeia. United Kingdom: TSO Publishers. p. 712. ISBN  978-0-11-322987-1 unable to check, but the text implies that this is not ‘’about SHINE’’, merely about a standard. Probable fail
19. http://www.cins.ca/docs/panrep-rapexp-eng.pdf SHINE is not mentioned. This is about the generic product set. Fail
20. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg55468/html/CHRG-111shrg55468.htm SHINE not mentioned. Fail
21. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1435/ML14356A494.pdf document submitted by SHINE to a committee. SHINE originating documents are a primary source. Fail
22. http://www.jsonline.com/business/shine-medical-technologies-receives-150000-national-science-foundation-grant-b99529497z1-310968511.html Press release. Fail
23. http://www.ibmadison.com/In-Business-Madison/August-2012/SHINE-brings-a-light-of-hope-to-cancer-and-heart-patients/ seems to be an interview with one of the principals, thus a primary source. Fail
24. https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC54/GC54InfDocuments/English/gc54inf-3-att7_en.pdf SHINE is not mentioned. Fail
25. http://www.ro-journal.com/content/7/1/30 SHINE is not mentioned. Fail
26. http://www.radiochemistry.org/nuclearmedicine/radioisotopes/ex_iso_medicine.htm SHINE is not mentioned. Fail
27. http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/xenon-xe-133-inhalation-route/description/drg-20075195 SHINE is not mentioned. Fail

From this analysis it follows that the majority of the asserted facts in this article are not supported by references that meet Wikipedia’s needs. As it stands this should never have escaped into main namespace. The analysis confirms the desire of a self identified COI editor (my memory says they identified themselves as an intern at SHINE, and this is likely confirmed by the {{ connected contributor}} banner on the talk page) to fulfil a job requirement and to get an article published. This is a piece of brochureware supported by WP:BOMBARD.

On the article talk page editors wonder why folk have not joined in with their conversation about referencing. The answer is that this was a WP:AFC Draft and the reviews take care of this. Fiddle Faddle 08:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

It's hard not to feel sandbagged since you didn't raise these concerns during a conversation you were obviously watching, since you AfD'd it inside of 90 minutes after it entered main space. You also missed the cover story from Nuclear News (PDF), the magazine of the American Nuclear Society that mentions the company and their process. Several of the items you mentioned above are not SHINE press releases, they are from UW-Madison, Los Alamos and Argonne national labs, not written by SHINE. These are major third parties that have partnered with the company. The supply agreements are also written by the other party, GE Healthcare, Lantheus and Deerfield Mgmt, not SHINE. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 11:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment It was not I who determined that this was fit for main namespace and used the Articles for Creation Helper Script to promote it there, despite its being totally unready to migrate. We require the correct level of assessment of references by reviewers before they take the decision to promote an article. One of the major things reviewers must look for is that a draft should have a 60% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. Some lower that to 50%. You may choose to feel sandbagged if you so desire, but WP:BURDEN was on the contributing editor to produce correct referencing, and, to a great extent, upon you as the accepting reviewer.. I see this article in this state as having less than even the 50%. It should have remained as a draft and been reviewed properly. It was not. Now it is equal with all other articles here and will sink or swim according to this discussion and others like it. Fiddle Faddle 12:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I stand by the decision to move it, but regardless of your comment above, it would have been a common courtesy for you to have mentioned in the discussion that you intended to AFD it 90 minutes after it was moved. There are several legitimate sources and third party items you are simply dismissing. In the last 9 years of editing, I've seen much worse than this article at it's current stage. It may not be the best, but the article subject does exist and it's activities are routinely mentioned in regional media. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 00:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment no. 10 is a technical report, not peer-reviews but subjected to agency review before being published. No 11 is a conference presentation, also not peer reviewed, but anything out of LANL will have ben reviewed internally and can be assumed accurate. They prove that whatever the papers say was indeed done. DGG ( talk ) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Technetium-99m. Normally, no matter how promising the technology , a company producing a new product is not notable until it has produced the product, or at least licensing is completed. The best explanation of this is in the reference just supplied from Nuclear News. I don't see how the peer-reviewed nature of the references is relevant one way or the other. DGG ( talk ) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Good afternoon, I am going over all the comments here, but would like to note this regarding references #10 - the national labs are the most credible research facilities in the US. ^[1] They are a non-biased institutions that is backed by the US government. Also another question, regarding reference number 14: I was instructed during one review that I could not use Deerfield as a "reference" because it was promoting their company. Thank you for the comments, they are very helpful! -- User:PattiMoly99 16 July 2015

There is nothing wrong with number 14. Even if Yahoo Finance published the press release without changes, it would be OK under WP:SELFPUB, as it is used only to support the claim that the agreement was made. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I am working on finding the sources for anything that appears to be a press release prior to July of 2012 - before my position as Executive Assistant. Hoping to have finished by Wednesday of next week. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you and have a nice weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattiMoly99 PattiMoly99 ( talk) 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC) ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep per DualFreq and others. Omnedon ( talk) 22:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete on the borderline of soon becoming notable. The attempt to get the article first is promotional, which is the reason why someone else whould write the article when it becomes notable, and why I do not recommend moving it to draft space. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:COI on the article talk page. Thank you, PattiMoly99 ( talk) 17:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, revisit in 2018 There are enough sources to establish the company's technology as notable. There should be a place for that on a page for the most relevant isotopes or processes. The business deals and plans of are all too WP:CRYSTALBALL for an independent article at this time. Rhoark ( talk) 21:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep All the editors seem to agree that it has had widespread coverage, so that means it is notable. The Crystal Ball objection is misguided. It is used when someone claims a topic will receive widespread coverage in the future. We have an article about SETI now for example, we do not need to wait until they find something first. TFD ( talk) 22:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Promotional and premature. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge into Technetium-99m or other suitable target. - This particular company may fail in its venture, but the impending technetium shortage is real and is very important. For a paper that reviews more than one idea for making up the shortfall see this Nature article from 2013. It mentions five proposals including SHINE. A related topic of interest is the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011 (signed into law on 2 January 2013), per this link. That article states there was an actual disruption of medical procedures in 2009-2010 due to the shortage. If somehow the effort of merging the articles would be too great I don't see much problem with retaining the current article, which is not excessively promotional. The lead is OK, and the second paragraph talks about where they are with respect to milestones. Even if the whole company is just the N+1st flaky technology that may never succeed, this article is bare minimum coverage and doesn't promise the moon. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Because of the edits performed in this gross diff I can now see that sufficient notability has been established for me to withdraw my nomination, and, further, to opine Keep in the discussion. My withdrawal should not stop the discussion from running to term since I am simply one person with one opinion. I am basing my mind change on the fact that I can now see that it passes WP:GNG on the basis that notability is asserted and it either is referenced or is capable of being referenced. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• merge into Technetium#Fission_product_for_commercial_use, and include discussion of other startups funded to fill the gap in supply. We can create an article on this company once it becomes operational. per DGG above. Jytdog ( talk) 23:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge per DGG's comment. This is a WP:TOOSOON. Guy ( Help!) 10:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge per DGG - if this company meets the notability criteria in the future, an article can always be created at that time, but at the moment it is too soon/ PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 11:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I just finished a pretty much complete re-write of the article. There's certainly sufficient 3rd party support and relevance within the medical isotope production economy to support retention of the article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Your edits made the company seem too much like they already are in production; the edits failed to take into account that this company may never get off the ground. Which is also why many of us have said "not yet." Jytdog ( talk) 13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I made it quite clear (except for one mistaken phrase in the opening which you fixed) that they are not producing anything yet and that all their funding is from VC or government with no revenue stream yet. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, looks like the company is right on the borderline of notability, but right now it is still in WP:CRYSTALBALL country. I'd allow it to be put into user draft space (userfied). Ghostwheel ʘ 02:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, oppose merge per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Ceyockey ( talk · contribs)'s rewrite clearly demonstrates that the subject is notable for receiving detailed coverage in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Wisconsin State Journal. I oppose a merge because information about the company will be lost in a merge to Technetium#Fission product for commercial use.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SHINE Medical Technologies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 00:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ceyockey, I hope this is allowed, but it wasn't the Netherlands that was idle for sometime that caused such a shortage in the U.S.; It was the NRU reactor in Canada. Here is the reference ^[1]. Also, we are not a "medical" business, more of a pharmaceutical - I hope I didn't put the "medical" category on there. Thank you for your help!!!

• Delete as a non-notable vapourware software, and for having an article too soon for notability to be established. Aerospeed ( Talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: The company does not plan to produce any software that I am aware of and the article makes no mention of software. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 21:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

My mistake - to the closing admin, please disregard my previous comment. (I was too hasty to call this software when I saw the word "vapourware"...) Aerospeed ( Talk) 02:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Aerospeed: For clarity, please strike though that which is to be disregarded. It is now ambiguous rather than simply incorrect. Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 28 July 2015 (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.