Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannamedical Pharma (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Consensus is clear among uninvolved editors. Star  Mississippi  23:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Cannamedical Pharma
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news, PR and interviews for this brochure advertising article.  scope_creep Talk  10:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine,  and Germany. &mdash;  Karnataka  talk  11:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Germans take their pot seriously. Here's a link to the Cannamedical section of their de:Liste der in Deutschland erhältlichen medizinischen Hanfsorten article. This salacious link is from de:Fabian Thylmann. This is an AfD from 4 years ago: de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/24. Februar 2019. This is a deletion review this year de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung/Archiv/2023/Woche 17; Cannamedical remains deleted. Germany have medical marijuana magazine that seems reliable and has a number of stories about Cannamedical. There's also this Australian story.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was drafting a contribution to the first AfD when it was closed and the article soft-deleted. While the given sources verify that this is a firm going about its distribution business in its market, I was unconvinced that anything indicated it to be of encyclopaedic notability. Against that, though, were the reference items from FAZ and Handelsblatt: to me these provide verification, but I felt that others may regard such coverage as immediately indicative of notability. I also thought of suggesting draftification of this paid WP:SPA article, but that would shunt the dilemma about notability onto the AfC reviewer. The links posted above by are interesting in that context, as I see these sources were considered when the request to restore the deleted de.wiki article was rejected in June. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. In reference to draftification, I review regularly at AfC and would not have sent this to mainspace. Would suggest allowing the AfD to run its course instead. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - the refs I looked at earlier aren't quite enough for notability.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article cites various reliable secondary sources such as Handelsblatt and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. These sources are known for high-quality journalism. Please don't mistake them with "routine business news" or "PR", because that is what they are definitely not. --Allianzwhen (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , as stated on the WP:DISCLOSE page which I previously linked from your Talk page, "As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace." AllyD (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So is a WP:COI editor, then with no interest in following or understanding consensus based notability policy.   scope_creep Talk  07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at the two refs above:
 * Ref 1 This is article built on an interview of Henn, with an image Henn from the company, with information from the company. Its it not independent. It fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 2 Ref 11 in the article. This is PR plain and simple. It states from Henn "We don’t get to see our goods here in the offices. It is delivered directly to a high-security warehouse and shipped from there," It is not independent. It fails WP:ORGIND,. Both of these are classic PR.

Both these references fail WP:NCORP. We will look at the rest of the references shortly.  scope_creep Talk  23:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Frankly, I find this discussion strongly discouraging, and the assumptions that you have made and brought forward are concerning, to be honest.
 * I understand why you want paid editors to disclose, and I believe it's a reasonable thing to do. This is why I disclosed the paid editing according to WP:DISCLOSE. The disclosure should be obvious to the educated editor because it immediately pops up when one hovers over my username with his mouse cursor. I'm conviced that you all are reasonable, knowledgable editors who understand this. Please don't overinterpret Wikipedia's WP:DISCLOSE policy too much by asking paid editors who have disclosed in accordance with the ToU to disclose again every single time they make edits.
 * Please also note that not every single paid editor has "no interest in following or understanding consensus based notability policy". I am well aware of Wikipedia's core principle: It's an encyclopaedia that depicts, in a neutral manner, what is believed to be established knowledge.
 * I strongly recommend reassessing the references that I have provided:
 * The Handelsblatt article includes information derived from an interview of Henn, but it is not based on information from the company. German-language newspaper-like sources don't just copy-paste what they are told, they actually do journalism properly. The data Handelsblatt have used is actually from GKV Gamsi, and that is exactly what the article discloses. The photograph of Henn is obviously licenced from Cannamedical because that makes a lot of sense considering German copyright law. Cannamedical may allow free use of that photograph for journalistic purposes, and this way it is much easier for Handelsblatt to use a decent picture. Do you expect them to have their own photographer who visits eveyone for a quick photoshoot? I trust you know that this would be highly unrealistic.
 * May I please beg your pardon regarding the FAZ? You are saying that FAZ's article is "PR plain and simple". Sorry, I strongly disagree. It should be immediately obvious to any knowledgable person that the FAZ article is not "PR plain and simple" because it is behind a paywall. Nobody in the right mind puts PR behind a paywall. It would have been honest and I would have appreciated if you had said or disclosed or noted that the FAZ article is behind a paywall. I don't wish to allege that you haven't read the FAZ article, but I hope it is understandable why I am in doubt regarding this.

FAZ have included a direct quote from Henn, yes, but they put it into context and evaluate it. That is what good sources do, they depict what one party says, and what another party says, compare that, evaluate it and put it into context. This is how journalism works. You must not assume that this direct quote is depicted as "the truth" by FAZ, and I assume that every reasonable Wikipedia editor knows this. FAZ are one of the most, if not the most reliable German-language newspaper source, they are, if you will, the "German New York Times". They don't do PR.
 * WP:CORPDEPTH includes examples of substantial coverage, and in this case we have got "ongoing media coverage focusing on [an] organisation", so Cannamedical is notable.
 * Note that the article's original AfD nomination was a violation of Wikipedia's WP:SOCK policy. A German Wikipedia editor logged out of his account to nominate the article for deletion which is obvious from the way the article was proposed for deletion. The actions resemble exactly how on the German language version of Wikipedia an article is proposed for deletion, and the reasoning was typical of how a German Wikipedia editor would propose an article for deletion. It's highly problematic that nobody figured this and that the article was treated as having been prodded.
 * Regards, --Allianzwhen (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references discussed above have no "Independent Content" and the facts/information are all attributed to people affiliated with the topic company.  HighKing++ 16:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I know what kind of source (WP:SIRS-compliant) is needed here. The core problem becomes apparent when realising that basically everyone's been saying that the sources don't tick WP:SIRS's independence criteria, which is incorrect. The sources discussed above are independent per WP:SIRS, but that may be hard to see. I'm not even blaming anyone here, I know how the perception of FAZ and Handelsblatt not being independent sources comes to be, and I feel it needs some explaining.
 * The fact that Handelsblatt or FAZ have interviewed Henn does not mean that Henn uses these sources as a vehicle to convey a message to the reader, or that the sources would even let him do that. Handelsblatt and FAZ are known for their high-quality journalism, and the articles do not include information or facts attributed to people affiliated with the company without fact checking. If you were able to read these sources thoroughly, you'd see that they are in fact not interviews, and that they include only what Wikipedia describes as "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking". The sources (i.e., the writers) aren't affiliated with Cannamedical in any way. If, in an FAZ interview, an interviewed person lies, the FAZ are going to write that straight into their article(s) as they are known for fact checking. They express whether or not they believe (based on fact checking) that claims made in an interview are factually correct.
 * The interesting bit here is that the FAZ article actually expresses doubts, discusses legal issues and gives a lot of background information. And it is at this point that I need to ask a serious question: Do you comprehend that Ref 2 refers to the source, but only shows one sixth of its contents? Reading FAZ or Handelsblatt requires a paid subscription as they aren't PR platforms. I honestly wonder how anyone can assess a source by reading only two out of twelve paragraphs. How would you know whether that source has "no independent content" if you cannot even read 85 per cent of it? Please do me a favour and think of this before making premature judgements. Thank you.
 * Regards, --Allianzwhen (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a PR.   scope_creep Talk  15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going through the articles (the pieces I can see) and *everything* about the company is attributed to Henn. You say its not an interview - it is. He was interviewed. The articles recount the details of the interview. You say that these statements come with "fact checking" - where does it say that or is this a big assumption on your part? Just FYI, most times the obligations for "fact checking" is to diligently repeat what was said, not to check the veracity of what was said. In this example we're not examining whether the publisher or journalist are independent (as per "functional independence") but whether the information is independent (as per "intellectual independence"). The information must be "clearly attributed to a source unaffiliated to the subject" but all I can see is information attributed to Henn.  HighKing++ 21:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You've made an important statement: the pieces I can see. About 5/6 of the source's material is behind a paywall. The FAZ article is not a 200-word PR release, it is an in-depth article about Cannamedical Pharma that extends way further than just 200 words. Nobody puts PR behind a paywall.
 * FAZ's article is also not an interview. FAZ have interviewed Henn, and they have cited some bits he said in their article; but that does not make the article an interview. The article just happens to cite Henn right at the beginning which might give the impression that it's an interview, but it is not. The FAZ are known for their fact checking, and they obviously don't do what you describe as "diligently repeat what was said". That would be indicative of poor quality journalism.
 * I also know what you refer to as "intellectual independence". Look, the FAZ article cites Henn directly or indirectly on various occasions. But it's not a deep interview or something like that. The article would have worked without citing Henn. Whenever something he has said is used, it is put into context, and everything is explained properly. Henn's "sayings" are not conveyed as facts or "the truth". The article is the author's original text and has intellectual independence. Since the article discusses Cannamedical Pharma, it just made some sense to cite Henn here and there. But that's all.
 * Regards, --Allianzwhen (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're making incorrect assumptions about what is being said and I don't think you've correctly grasped the GNG/NCORP requirements (which don't exist on German language Wikipedia anyway). Lets leave aside the paywalled article for the moment (and I'll sign up for the 30day trial if it becomes necessary) since we need *multiple* articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability and I've yet to see even one. Start with the Handelsblatt article. Please point to any paragraph which you say meets ORGIND/CORPDEPTH requirements, that is, contains in-depth (about the company) (CORPDEPTH) original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (ORGIND). I've looked and in my opinion this is regurgitated company bumpf that attributes the information (several times) to Hann.  HighKing++ 10:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Following from my Comment at the outset of this discussion, I feel that for an article on a firm to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability, more is needed than verifiable statements that at a particular time it had a quarter of a local import/manufacture/distribution market, be that in cannabis, Kimchi, cogs, or whatever. Proportionate presence would be fine for a Semdor / Cannamedical entry on a categorised business listing site under Medical cannabis suppliers > Germany >, but an encyclopaedia is distinct from that, and I see no claim to notability here (and although each wiki evolves its own inclusion criteria, the rejection at de.wiki is informative). There is also no article (here or on de.wiki) on the Semdor Pharma parent, and, trying an alternative perspective, the articles on Medical cannabis and Cannabis in Germany describe these markets in a non-vendor-specific manner, so there appears to be no appropriate redirect target. AllyD (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2023 (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.