Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PainCeptor Pharma

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. Excluding some non-policy supported reasoning, this comes as fairly even - one side asserts a general lack of notability and the other states there is sufficient sourcing to show it, though there weren't specific sources given or disputed.

Functionally then, neither strength of reasoning nor absolute numbers (whether !votes or just "votes") are clear enough to warrant a more specific close at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PainCeptor Pharma[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently short-lived and non notable company. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I was the editor who first started the article back in 2007. I spent a bit of time today searching for and adding content and I believe there is sufficient suitabley supported content to both support keeping the article and advancing it from 'stub' to 'start' status. As a side note, I've come in on the 'delete' side of several articles I have either started or substantively added to; saying this to help dispel the notion that I'm playing favorites. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be notable enough and they go bunch of patents. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, none of the patents cited remain active as all have lapsed and are 'abandoned'. One source indicated they had been granted a patent, but actually they had just applied, then abandoned the application ... though the investigation into patent statuses might be characterized as original research on my part (hope not, but it could be so construed). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:49, 6 February 2020 (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.