Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systagenix Wound Management

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systagenix Wound Management[edit]

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

Promotional ("heritage of trust", "continually enhancing product line", etc.), among other issues. Despite the fact that its parent company is relevant, each article must demonstrate its own relevance - notability is not inherited. Technopat (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if appropriate sources and evidence of notability are provided. Were this even a significant fraction of the way to an acceptable article, I would say that the evidence of notability is probably out there (eg a Yorkshire Post article), and they clearly are a major manufacturer and supplier of their own distinct range of wound dressings. But it is a private company, so audited company information is behind pay walls. I don't think I have seen a worse company website for a long time, and there are few clues there as to what the article might sensibly say if the independent sources were found to support it. This article is so unsatisfactory I don't think we can really label it as spam, since nobody could hold down a job if they had been paid to get it in. By the way, it cannot be merged or redirected as it is now an independent company. --AJHingston (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Comment - First, the nominating editor should have notified User:Mauricio Cano who created the content in this article. The company appears to be multinational with offices in the US, S. America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. I agree the article seems somewhat flawed from a promotional standpoint and needs further references. I would suggest the nominating editor make the proper notifications and see if the article can be salvaged before deleting. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the nominating editor, my notification was limited to the user who created the content, that is, Urbanrenewal, who left the comment above. Your suggestion regarding possible salvation of the article is at odds with my submitting it for discussion here and my original reasons for doing so still hold. Of course, there's no reason for you not trying to salvage it. --Technopat (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I created a redirect. It looks like the main editor is now aware of the situation. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes I made some changes, please tell me what can I do to keep the article, thanks--Mauricio Cano (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made another change to improve reasons to keep the article, thanks --Mauricio Cano (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the much better known parent company, Ethicon, which duplicates a good deal of the content--and needs some work in its own right, but is definitely worth an article. I would advise the creating author to try to find some more substantial references for the combined article. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ethicon is no longer connected. Johnson & Johnson sold what is now Systagenix in ~~1998~~ 2008. Ethicon is merely a J&J subsidiary. --AJHingston (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was once connected. It still seems to me the logical place for this. I note again the extensive duplication between the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it, I'm afraid. The Ethicon wound management business was sold, and it wasn't then known as Systagenix. Yes, Ethicon are still in the dressings business, but theirs seems to be surgical dressings, Systagenix wound management (the whole point seems to be that new product development means that they are now quite separate markets) and legally the two companies are different entities with no common ownership or products so the Ethicon article would have to be renamed. --AJHingston (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2011 (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.