Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endoca

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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endoca[edit]

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

This is a non-notable company. Most of the references do not even mention the company (they are about cannabis in general), and those that do name the company involve just passing mentions or are non-independent. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article must not be deleted on the basis of notable resources. The resources on dopemagazine must be a good resource for stay article live. 43.239.68.170 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — 43.239.68.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also, a suspected IP sock of Wikibaji, article creator, who commented again below.[reply]

The Dope Magazine article barely even mentions Endoca. If that reference is the best guage of Endoca's notability, then Endoca is clearly not notable. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are few resources which seems trust-able Trustpilot, spandidos-publications, dr.dk, wholefoodsmagazine and supplementpolice Wikibaji 06:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs) :Some citations (dr.dk, supplementpolice) are useful on Endoca article, it must be live on Wikipedia 14.192.210.245 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any cited sources that help to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - The article looks somewhat promotional to me. I have no idea for the notability, but also have not heard of this company before. The cannabis industry is notable, with recent legal developments in the U.S. though. If we can find a reliable third-party source that itself is notable, which mentions how Endoca is a pioneer in the field, then perhaps the company merits an article. Its tone would still need to be adjusted to not read like an advertisement. PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the comments above, I can't find anything more than trivial mentions in a news search. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment One of the things I noticed is that most of the references are in Dutch. I am curious, does Wikipedia permit the use of references that talk about content in a language apart from English? I know there are several Wikipedia pages in multiple languages, but is it necessary that a page in English have references that are written only in English? And does the same analogy apply to pages in other languages too?FlyingBlueDream (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-English language sources are allowed in the English Wikipedia; see WP:NONENG. That said, if there are two sources of equal quality and relevance, and one is in English and the other not, the one in English should be cited in the English Wikipedia. I don't know what other language Wikipedias' policies are on the use of sources outside their languages; those policies may well vary from language to language. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Endoca ApS CVR-nr 32334865 CVRP-nr 1019145480 is a very small Danish company established i 2014 with 2-4 employees. The cited article from Danmarks Radio 25. FEB. 2014 [[1]] is very critical of the company and it seems everything in connection with the company is not in accordance with Danish law. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 20:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Dyveldi, Can you please explain what Danish law is broken by the company? Do you have any valid point that explain the company is not notable to stay on Wikipedia. Wikibaji (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delayed answer. Reason for deletion is that it is a very small non notable Danish business. Wikipedia is not a business catalogue.

-- The article referred to is from 2014 and the company seems to have broken marketing regulations and questions were asked by Danish health authorities. As described in the article they needed to adjust their marketing and in addition comply with health regulations in Denmark. At the time it was not reported to the police. I have not followed up what happened to the case, but based experience from Norwegian similar cases they probably adjusted their marketing in accordance with the law and answered the questions asked. Changed their homepage, became more careful. Possibly also filed the correct applications for licenses which at the time was missing. Whether they in the end were served a fine I have not tried to find out. If so it has not necessarily been public and may not have been written about in the newspapers. The company is so small that it is not notable and it was not worth the work to try to find out what happened after the 2014 article. Their little skirmish with the law is definitely not enough to make them notable. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 19:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that this company meets WP:CORP. Peacock (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (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.