Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MerckSource

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MerckSource

Marked for speedy deletion which doesn't seem to apply; but it looks controversial enough to warrant a discussion. I'll abstain for now. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising. Looking at the contributions for user:SCM, the author of this article, they're all Merck-related ads. For instance, SCM puts in a link in a healthcare article for "Your Health Now" magazine, which turns out to be a Merck publication. And of course adding "Your Health Now" to a list of health magazines. Getting back to the article proper. no notability stated or implied. Also something odd turned up in Google: I was initially impressed by 141,000 Ghits, but only three pages of 22 distinct listings. It turns out there's a lot of press releases out about MerckSource, and that's basically it. Yeah, this is a new service, but that's also the point: WP is not a newspaper, nor a free webhost, nor is this the place to become well-known. At best, merge into a the general Merck article. Subject fails WP:NOT for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles (I don't count articles which merely link to MerckSource, as mostly noted above - the articles have to be about the subject). Tychocat 17:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Possible Indirect Advert

    My concern with this page is not that MerckSource should not be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, but that the way it is presented may lead to people thinking that MerckSource is an independent website and will give unbiased information, see quote from MerckSource page:

    MerckSource is non-promotional and written and edited by third-party medical professionals. The site was launched in 2002 and has received several awards.

    This is saying that MerckSource is excellent basically, and that it can be trusted.

    The problem is that it is well known that big Pharma (Drug Companies such as Merck) use general or specific websites as well as patient groups to 'advertise products'. E.g. even on the MerckSource page it has a link to Merck's homepage. And the methods used are often quite subtle - e.g. there is nothing obviously wrong with the MerckSource website - it does not directly advertise Merck products but it does have links to Merck sites including Merck Product Info (even though there is a disclaimer). If I was to advise a patient who wanted to use such a website I would say okay but take care because you may find yourself getting linked to less neutral websites.

    I suggest, that if there is nothing particulary special about MerckSource, that the majoirty of Drug Information websites supported by Pharma are listed on their own page of Wikipedia - and written in factual unbiased terms so that the user can choose which site to use if any.

    Wikipedia does not want to become a tool of Pharma, but equally Pharma and its websites need to be fairly laided out in Wikipedia.

    Cheers

    Lethaniol 17:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's spam. Also, WP is not a web directory. Gazpacho 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Although it claims to be non-promotional, it is a blatant advertisement.--Anthony.bradbury 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like an ad to me, WP is not a directory, etc...L0b0t 01:24, 11 September 2006 (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.