Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ovation Pharmaceuticals


 * 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 no consensus. After three relists, mixed comments in the discussion, and lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ovation Pharmaceuticals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've been watching this article for quite some time and concluded it was time to nominate, my searches have frankly found nothing better than pieces of news and PR, certainly nothing to suggest an actually better article, however. The current 2 sources are simply PR themselves. SwisterTwister  talk  06:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete seems to fail WP:CORP despite coeverage such as this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORP and lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's actual quite a lot. Ovation was one of the earliest companies to make money by buying the licensing for old inexpensive drugs and greatly raising the prices--besides the two sources in the article there's  primarily about the proprietor but with a good deal about the company [] NYT also with a good deal about Ovation aand the 2008 congressional hearings about its practices. And a good deal more in the G news search. Obviously, the article needs to be rewritten to cover the stuff the company is actually notable for.  DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't have time to work on the article right this minute, but there are sufficient sources to sustain notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * sufficient sources? the article only cites press releases. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was talking about the additional sources that have been mentioned here and that I found in searching. I intend to add them to the article before the next round of discussion expires. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete clearly fails WP:CORP. no evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Please take another look. I have done a complete rewrite (hint: the company isn't going to like this version nearly as well as the previous one) and added six independent sources. Pinging --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as now being properly sourced. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't normally relist for a 3rd time but I think this would benefit the discussion &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:24, 15 July 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.