Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasco Laboratories

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 keep. Bduke (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prasco Laboratories

Manufacturer of generic drugs that fails to meet WP:ORG. No adequate assertion of notability, no sources of any sort. Originating editor appears to have conflict of interest, judging by username. Speedy tag removed by third editor (not originating author) hence bringing to AfD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant efforts by Rudget and Serpent's Choice, well done folks. I think if the article had looked like this originally (and not been originated by an obvious COI editor) I'd never have AfD'd it. However I'm still ambivalent about whether, even with the resuscitation efforts, there is life in the casualty. I guess that makes me a Neutral now with a request to a closing admin to pretty much decide on first principles with reference to WP:ORG. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I think. The article as it stands is an advertising piece. But as to the validity of the topic, I'm uncertain. There are quite a few articles about Prasco, but mostly in pay-to-publish industry periodicals, which I cannot imagine being considered an independent source. There is a little bit of reporting on a lawsuit filed against Prasco concerning certain aspects of a sodium sulfacetamide patent[1], but that seems to me to be the sort of thing that every pharma company has to deal with. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Spurred by Rudget's efforts to clean up the article and my own affinity for pulling things back from the brink, I've done all that I could to clean this up and source it appropriately. The real question for other AFD participants and the closing administrator is going to be whether or not enough of these sources are truly independent of Prasco. I'm not privy to the intricacies of the pharmaceutical industry or business reporting. I suspect that some or all of these publications are pay-to-play, and that their "articles" are in fact just re-distributed press releases. Business Courier of Cincinnati might be a legitimate enough source to run with, however (although, for them, this is local business coverage). YMMV. I've done all I can. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, currently it is a good candidate for AFD per all the concerns raised in the nomination. But I see that there are quite a few g-hits 1, 2 & 3 - so I'll try and see what I can do.Rudget . 17:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to clean it up, but I fear it may still be deleted. Rudget . 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep PharmaMarketLetter is not pay to publish. given that it costs £595 a year, it's a edited industry newsletter. The table of contents [2] shows it does not publish only positive information. That's an independent source,. I havent evaluated whether what is said there about them is notable. DGG (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article asserts notability and seems neutral so I see not reason to delete. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (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.