Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego Pharmaceuticals

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The result was SPEEDY KEEP - WITHDRAWN per WP:SNOW Mayalld 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (non-admin)

[edit] Ego Pharmaceuticals

Ego Pharmaceuticals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Clear WP:COI from the only substantial editor, who appears to be a representative of the company. Initially introduced plenty of material written in the first person. This has since been somewhat toned down. The article fails to maintain even a vestige of WP:NPOV, and goes through sentence after sentence of heaping praise upon the company. This is pretty blatant advertising. Only contributor is a SPA. Mayalld 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Ad-style writing is a cause for clean-up, not necessarily deletion. The question is whether or not the company passes notability guidelines for corporations. I'm going to go and try to delete the advertising and see if there is anything left. (As an aside, I do enjoy the irony of seeing a company named "Ego" AfD'd for reasons of vanity...) - Eron^Talk 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even after your sterling efforts to clear out the advertising fluff, the article remains totally one-sided and soesn't even attempt to portray the company in a dispassionate manner. As the only substantial edits have come from the company, it remains uncertain that a neutral editor will come along to put it right. {{npov}} tagged to give it a chance. Mayalld 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's quite obviously a notable company [1] (a 50 year old pharmaceutical company could hardly be otherwise), and COI and neutrality issues (which are not particularly severe now in any case) are not reasons for deletion. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The company is clearly notable. While there are issues with NPOV and COI these are not insurmaountable and not grounds for deletion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - notable Australian company - I believe it passes notability guidelines notwithstanding it is a private company. AfD is never meant to be a substitute for clean up.--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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.