Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avacor (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.  MBisanz  talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Avacor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page makes no assertion of notability, has no third party references, and consists of 3 sentences. According to WP:ORG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is."

Beyond that, the original creator and primary early contributor has only ever created or worked on this article (which should rise WP:NPOV and WP:COI red flags).

The list of issues with this page is longer than the page itself. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The question is not whether the "page" is any good--it's not, it's terrible. The question is whether the topic  is notable.  Per WP:GNG, there is in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, such as      .  Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with keeping the article if someone adds the sources... however those sources are about the lawsuit and tell us very little about the company itself. If we limit ourselves to what those sources tell us, we are left with an article about the lawsuits, not the company. I'm not convinced that notability of the company itself has been established. Perhaps we could write an article about the legal proceedings and incorporate the basic information that the article supplies in that article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Actually, not all of these sources are about a lawsuit.  In addition, there are more non-lawsuit sources on Google and Google News searches.  I did not try to list all of them.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete My searching didn't turn up much. The links provided above would give us only an article that said "Avacor is a company that has been sued a couple of times for misrepresenting its product to customers and investors." The company's website still looks like snake oil. Nothing worth keeping here. (I considered a redirect to Minoxidil, but that would be misleading; only one of their products contains minoxidil, although they trumpet their FDA approval of that product as if it applied to all their products. Let's not help these guys peddle their nostrums.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems the links Cowboy listed are just about a legal case regarding this company, their products are still not notable, nor is the company itself. Dengero (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dengero, thanks for commenting, but actually what you are saying is untrue. I provided five links.  The first three were about a lawsuit and the last two were not about a lawsuit at all.  It looks like link four just died.  Here's another version.    Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The last link sounds just like an advertisement, despite having an author of such. It's claimed "advertisements have appeared on television, radio, in the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade and on the Internet" - well, some shoddy "want it to last longer?" ads also appear on radio and late-night tv, but it's definitely not notable. As for the link you gave above, even the researches are not sure about the product. "The topical solution, which is marketed to men only, claims to dilate blood vessels in the scalp"/"The Web site claims that these..."/"However, this study does not appear to be published in any journal and consumers can only receive a copy of the study if they purchase the product". I smell a lot of fish in here. But either way, yes, that's my reply. Dengero (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2012 (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.