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.
Company is not notable, reads somewhat like
WP:G11The Determinatorptc 00:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets GNG as there are reliable sources, although the article is somewhat adverty.
Electriccatfish2 (
talk) 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep The company lost their constitutional fight in Canada's Supreme Court. Their fight against the Canadian government to market their products continues
drtap4 (
talk) 10.00, 9 July 2012 (UTC) —
drtap4 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - Please support your keep Vote! with a valid Wikipedia based reason. Because the, "company [was] blamed for death of patient" is not a valid reason. Losing a "constitutional fight in Canada's Supreme Court" does not automatically make them notable. Please see
WP:ORG.
reddogsix (
talk) 20:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. References are trivial in nature. The reliable sources mentioned in the "keep" comment are only passing mentions of the company.
reddogsix (
talk) 01:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep Public needs to be warned about this company. Health Canada warnings about this company ongoing.As the sister of the deceased my reasons are valid and an inquest is pending
digitel9598 (
talk)(UTC) —
digitel9598 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. --
Digitel9598 (
talk) 21:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - Please provide a valid reason for keeping the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a warning system. I am sorry for your loss, however, this is not a valid Wikipedia reason for inclusion in Wikipedia and it is certainly not an unbiased opinion.
reddogsix (
talk) 22:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep Agreeing with
Electriccatfish2 in part. Although I don't think the article reads like an advertisement. This company's 'medicines' have been linked to and appear to have precipitated a murder. Doesn't exactly reflect well on Truehope. The news sources might be considered reliable, but even these are supplementary to the main reference, which is a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The number of news articles on the subject serves to illustrate that this is something people are interested in. Another reason to keep.
evan.morien (
talk) 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete No sources indicating notability returned via Google web or news searches. None of the references in the article establish notability.
MisterUnit (
talk) 14:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable enough as per other comments, and as per when this article was deleted 6 months ago.
[1] It has not become more notable in only 6 months. —
Thempp (
talk) 20:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete (in its present form) It appears to be written for the sole purpose of
WP:SOAPboxing. See the author's remarks
here and the comment above. If an NPOV article that is actually about the company can be constructed from the sources then I'd change to "weak keep" (the coverage still seems fairly scant).--
William ThweattTalkContribs 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete for the reasons above. Though without prejudice for recreation, though the sources are insufficient, the subject matter suggests it may achieve notability in the near future.
Trusilver 06:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - The coverage cited in the article seems to meet GNG for me. There is quite a bit of national news coverage about the murder incident. A google news search for Truehope yields many articles. The article are not exclusively about Truehope, but some of them do cover it in a significant way.
-Scottywong| talk _ 16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
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.