Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novocure


 * 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. Much of the content was already on Tumor Treating Fields in regards to the study. If the corporate name needs to be added it can be done. Mkdw talk 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Novocure

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot find sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to build an article. All the news source hits are PR. The handful of PubMed articles all appear to be connected to NovoCure itself. 03:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(Undid revision 58bye (talk) restore sinebot. you're not actually intentionally not signing AND removing sinebot on purpose to avoid accountability are you?

NO I put in tilds instead. never mind me mind your own self, I can mind me just fine. Can't tell you how upset I am cause you know this whole retaliation thing over a few edits earlier in the day.... and now you wanna say I'm trying to infer that I am acting in a shaddy or less than honest manner. Say ya no, it's offensive. Highly offensive but don't worry about it. It doesn't affect you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP I assume this was made in good faith and NOT in retailiation for edit disagreements earlier in the day. The citations include several sources and are impeachable. To cited the citations as a reason for deletion.....it really makes me question the good faith intent of my fellow editor. Novocure has gone through 3 phase clinicals and that stuff is cited in the references . And I can ad more too. This novocure is a breakthrough and it is easy to widely source. Doctors are proscribing it today. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably meant "unimpeachable". But that's exactly the point of this AFD argument--the sourcing isn't sufficient.  The sources that are currently in the article certainly aren't sufficient, and I couldn't find any that were.  If you find some that demonstrate the subject of the article passes WP:GNG please bring them.   03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources are just fine, I would appreciate less passive aggressiveness and more maturity . Five citations  3 that go further  for more insight... and your just saying you can't seem them or that you dont like them?  That is not the case here now is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs)
 * The main point is that the sources aren't independent of the subject, as required by WP:GNG. To build an article we need multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic.  We don't have that for the subject of this article.   04:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your main point is not worth taking the bait over. We are not doing anything. I am defending my article against a retaliator trying to get me over some imagined slight on wikipedia.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/novocure-enrolls-first-patients-in-a-randomized-trial-of-novottftm-therapy-for-patients-with-brain-metastases-from-non-small-cell-lung-cancer-2013-11-19

http://www.dnaindia.com/pressreleases/press-release-novocure-treats-first-recurrent-glioblastoma-patient-in-japan-with-novottf-therapy-1868362

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/health&id=9278252

Citation is not gonna devnul this article. The Citations are real. Novocure is real. A quick curory search will just spill forth a torrent reputable 1st 2nd and 3rd party citations.

This is a real treatment for cancer. And it really deserves it's own wiki article. Just like chemo and surgery, and radiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear lack of independent, reliable sources; fails notability criteria. MastCell Talk 04:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on waht masty? Do you as well just dislike the sourceing? Or is it the editor your have issue with. I know the notablity thing has no legs. Did you bother to read the talk page or did you go strait to articles of deletion.. Because I PROD first myself... you know. Give the benifit of the doubt. ....  This is a cancer treatment with NO KNOWN CONTRAINDICATIONS!

Yeah. It is highly notable. More so than some realize .. more so than some would like. but notable all the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article fails to demonstrate that the company meets our notability guidelines as demonstrated in third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that isnt right. This company cures cancer. The links provided show phase 2 and three clincal results as well as a link to there approval letter. The treatment itself has no known contraindications.This is in the talk pages if anyone ever thinks to bother with it. And best of all this is a baby artile just made a few days ago. I was gonna make her better. Now I got my old war buddy Masty rallying the troops. and that same old feeling of being bent over. You get to call me names, mob, blank out my talk text. it isn't right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * merge/redirect to Tumor Treating Fields, or vice-versa. Both are basically the same subject (company & its product). Taken hogether, one may find significant independent coverage, eg. in Science Magazine. Not to say that a FDA-approved treatment was notable for FDA, it would be weird to be rejected by wikipedia. (Not to say that FDA is most surely an independent, reliable third-party source) - Altenmann >t 07:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is nowhere near enough significant, independent coverage in reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:CORPDEPTH in my view. Research papers from those running the company isn't coverage. There are plenty of FDA-approved treatments, pharmaceuticals and other programs but that doesn't make them notable. I agree that independent coverage of that FDA approval might get us closer but in and of itself, I don't think approval is enough to substantiate notability. Stalwart 111  10:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The only criteria that matters is whether we have WP:MEDRS sources that can attest to the importance of this article. As it is, we have listings, FDA approvals and some requests for special pleading from anonymous editors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

THEN IT METS THE MEDRS? So since such is the case what is resoning to your decision?


 * Merge per Altenmann. Their treatment (not a cure) is more noteworthy. The only difference is the side effects (neurological instead of physiological). -- Auric    talk  13:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I've dug out and added a couple of reasonable sources. I'd say this was borderline, but if it survives it should probably be merged with Tumor Treating Fields. Alexbrn talk 13:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine work as always . I support along with the several others here a merge with redirect into Tumor Treating Fields.  There just isn't enough independent coverage of NovoCure the company to build this article, but there does look to be enough to properly develop the TTF article.   14:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That is great that you two are so supportive of ech other, especially on all the articles I might read and edit. I just want to encourage you both remember to do your best by the article and ALWAYS double check your references. Two seconds of extra attention can save a lifetime of problems TalkFirstThenEdit (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent sourcing to build an encyclopedic article around. Yobol (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Independent, reliable, secondary sources are absolutely essential, and are mandatory for an article on a company dealing with human health. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Yobol. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2013 (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.