Talk:Octapharma
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contested deletion
[edit]This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it contains information which is verifiable and reliable. It is objective and factual information taken from documents available in the public domain (the company’s annual report and website). The point of view is neutral and objective. The page is not exclusively promotional, it is factual and encyclopedic: it is a profile of a company which played a part in the history of hemophilia treatment. It describes the subject, Octapharma, from a neutral point of view and so does not qualify for the criteria for speedy deletion. The criteria for speedy deletion says “Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopaedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the
 | This article contains promotional content. |
tag to alert others to do so.” It is not clear what is meant here by promotional material? If this statement is not considered sufficient to remove the "criteria for speedy deletion" label, can you provide specifics on which elements of the text are considered an issue?
Octapharma (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have commented on this user's talk page about the company site not being in the public domain even though it it is accessible by the public. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have altered the opening paragraph to remove unencylopedic/promotional language. It would be good to get some citations other than the firm's own website for this article, though. Doctorow (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)