Talk:Initiative for Medicines, Access, and Knowledge

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intellectual property (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property articles

Notability

Hi User:Onel5969 I noticed the notability tag. I just did a search for more sources and they are actually in the news a lot right now, however all the top hits are saying the same thing, that they are not evidence based in their advocacy and the similarity of the messaging is very similar, I think it might be corporate spin against them:

1 - https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/15/thank-senator-tillis-recognizing-need-evidence-based-policymaking-patent-law/id=145875/ 2 - They are also appearing here, but I can't access it and it may be corporate spin (against them) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=03425b30-1f96-4da9-b329-12a8f82c8218 3 - Likewise here https://www.law360.com/articles/1461240/tillis-asks-fda-uspto-to-vet-reports-by-drug-patent-critics 4 - and here https://www.keionline.org/37343

I.e. they are in the news a lot at the moment, but I think mainly because they are pointing out drug IP law issues and people are pushing against them and therefore a lot of it is probably bad for NPOV. Any thoughts? CT55555 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... yes they are in the news, but no real notable coverage, lots of mentions. Need more in-depth coverage about the organization in order to meet both WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this one:

https://www.hhrjournal.org/2017/11/patent-fighters-taking-on-big-pharma/

Also the Nature article, for example, talks about quite a bit in the infobox, names them 6 times, talks about funding, activities, mission, https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt0114-5.pdf CT55555 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]