Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agrovet Market Animal Health (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Agrovet Market Animal Health
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:PROMO article created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Umbertocalderon. Significant RS coverage cannot be found to confirm notability. Previous AfD closed as "keep", but did not result in presentation of any new sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and this is honestly G11 material, the Keep in 2009 is exactly what should not happen or be kept now. SwisterTwister   talk  00:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete for pete's sake. i just removed "In June 4, 2013, the company granted a United States Patent (no. 8,455,452), for a "Composition and use of a long-acting oral bioadhesive endoparasiticide gel based on doramectin"."  and reduced the body of the article by a third.   for pete's sake; how weak and promotional can you get?  Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the concerns already noted. There aren't any inline sources used in the article currently, with some of this company's own websites and a patent included in the external links section. This company is mentioned on some websites of other companies, but I didn't come across any independent coverage in reliable sources. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2016 (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.