Talk:Ego Pharmaceuticals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2007. The result of the discussion was SPEEDY KEEP.

[edit] Ego Pharmaceuticals

I created a page with the above title.

[edit] Rationale

This article is useful to the public and to Wikipedia for the following reasons:

• Independent article appeared on ABC television (as referenced in the article).
• Ego is a significant organisation based on number of employees (180+), nations where it has employees (7 in Asia Pacific, Middle East and European regions), number of products (110+).
• The longevity of Ego (founded in 1953)
• The uniqueness of Ego in the pharmaceutical industry being Australian owned and Australian made for more than 5 decades (one of only about 5 companies)
• The single focus of Ego on being the specialist in dermatology only.
• The staff of Ego living the company values which are embedded throughout
• The reputation of Ego throughout pharmacy across Australia. Ask your pharmacist in Australia or New Zealand about Ego.
• The need for Wikipedia to cover companies other than multi national gigantic entities built to generate profit only.
• I have attempted to dilute the commercial nature and to increase the encyclopedic nature of the article, in line with Wikipedia guidelines.
• The hot link references include industry the Australian government owned ABC television, pharmaceutical industry association, not-for-profit associations in multiple nations and more. These add to the credibility of the information content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwin Gerald (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

NB The author has knowledge of details of Ego and vouches for the accuracy of this data.

In other words, the author has a WP:COI Mayalld 11:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have severely edited the article back to stub length in an effort to remove the advertising focus while still retaining enough information to establish notability. - Eron^Talk 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The article remains biased, with not a mention of any criticism of the company. Mayalld 17:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any criticism about the company to be mentioned? If not, it is hardly fair to tag this as NPOV. I did my best to trim the advertorial content; can you point out what is left that you consider to be biased in favour of the company? - Eron^Talk 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, I can't see it is appropriate given the changes made to cut it down. Few stubs on companies would contain criticism. I am unaware of any criticism of the company - ie it is not a major news item in Australia!--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I must disagree. The article heaps praise on the company, and is clearly POV at present, so I've restored the tag Mayalld 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does not heap praise - the citations do. Quite different.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite a search, I can find no criticism of the company. In my experience it is a well-regarded Australian company.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article makes plain, factual statements that are supported by references. The original version contained a great deal of POV puffery, but it seems to have been eliminated. While I recognize that the earliest versions were problematic, I see no reason for continued tagging as NPOV. - Eron^Talk 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)