Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EDrugSearch.com


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

EDrugSearch.com

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Numerous reasons for deletion include:


 * the lack of notability of the subject of this article;
 * the lack of material neutral references for the subject of this article; and
 * the blatant conflict of interest of the main contributor to the article.

Notability & references

The article makes no specific clais as to the notability of the subject. Topics that aren't mentioned include: number of hits (relative to others in the space), %age of hits of its participating pharmacies that it is responsible for channeling, revenues, etc.

The references are as follow:


 * Healthcare 100. A web site created by the subject company.
 * Company Web site. The subject company's web site.
 * KENS-TV news coverage. A very brief interest piece in on local news station.
 * The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. The subject company's representative is consulted on general issues as a 30-second clip in a longer discussion on drug abuse facilitated by online pharmacies.
 * San Antonio Express-News story. A human interest story in a local paper.
 * San Antonio Business Journal story. A nice article in a local paper.
 * Albuquerque Tribune op-ed. An op-ed about online pharmacies that makes passing reference to the subject company.
 * Wall Street Journal on Healthcare 100. An article about blogs that makes one reference to the a web site created by the subject company.
 * eDrugSearch.com page on Organized Wisdom. Subject company's page on a topical search engine.
 * Google's Online Pharmacy Qualification Process. Subject company not mentioned.

Note that almost none is actually about the subject company, and of those that are, the ones that discuss the subject company in detail don't really speak to its notability, but rather appear to be the fruits of a successful PR campaign (nothing wrong with that.

COI

Despite the fact that the main contributor to this article removed the CoI tag without comment, there is specific evidence for the CoI on the following page, which is from the blog of Idea Grove, a company owned by Scott Baradell, the main contributor to this article:


 * I attended Matthew Holt's second Health 2.0 conference earlier this week and published some thoughts on the confab at the blog of a client, eDrugSearch.com. ("Health 2.0" equals Web 2.0 plus healthcare, as you might have guessed.)
 * posted by Scott Baradell at 4:36 PM Trackback 2 Comments

This states that eDrugSearch.com, the subject of this article, is a client of the author--as clear a CoI as there can be.

Bongomatic (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Blatant advertising. Could have been CSD'd. Chaldor (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as blatant advertising. For what it's worth, also does not appear to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:51, 6 October 2008 (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.