Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pharmaceutical Companies (Developing World)

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 merge everything not fluffy to Pharmaceutical companies --- Deville (Talk) 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV essay discussing Pharmaceutical Companies, but completely unencyclopedic. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not it is referenced thoroughly and there is no original work. Take a look at the Pharmaceutical Company page. Sandwich Eater 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not the concern. I know it is referenced and perhaps not original research. But that doesn't stop it from being an essay. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Pro-industry opinion piece; not encyclopaedic. Cain Mosni 02:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything verifiable to the Pharmaceutical companies article, which already has a section on controversies, after removing the POV problems. I note that Sandwich Eater has already duplicated one section there. A balanced article on ethics of clinical trials, discussing the Developing Countries issue doesn't currently seem to exist and would be interesting, but this article isn't a good place to start. Espresso Addict 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not clear how Ultimis can agree it is not original work but still an essay. I think a more focused article on ethics of clinical trials in developing countries is what I would really think would be intetresting and that there is plenty of secondary material out there to gather into a good encyclopedic article. I don't think it is sucha pro-industry opinion piece, and even if you disagree it won't stay imbalanced for long on wikipedia!! I did go ahead an move some of those bullets to the Pharm company page and could temporarily move merge this article with that page. But the encyclopedic entry for a pharmaceutical company is already contaminated with this topic, as are several other pages, like the Constant Gardner pages. A separate page referencing and summarizing the secondary sources on the background of this issue would be extremely valuable and that is what I have tried to start here. Sandwich Eater 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete This is a POV essay and right now I don't see much potential for expansion into an encyclopedic article. Merge of content to Pharmaceutical companies as per Espresso Addict is certainly an option. I just don't see much potential for a standalone article here.--Isotope23 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rough Merge. Merge, but excise as much as possible, to rid this of so much of its fluff.-Kmaguir1 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No fork needed ... secondary sources can be placed in the original article. --Dennette 03:43, 1 September 2006 (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.