Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legitscript

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 Keep Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC) 17:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Legitscript

Legitscript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is nothing more than self promotion of a business that is not notable. Several of the so called references are nothing more than results of press releases, so in effect, it is primarily self referenced. PROD removed by newly created account of Millikin07, whose only edits have been to this article as of this point in time. Prowler08 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment No, the references include independent sources, including two national associations. LegitScript has been the target of some vandalism, and continuing efforts to remove its entry, likely because of the company's successful efforts to suspend fake Internet pharmacies, which has made its Wikipedia entry a continuing target by the owners of those suspended websites. Please see the entry's discussion, in which some of the vandalism efforts were noted. The entry is noteworthy because it is a website certification authority recognized as such by the national association of boards of pharmacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millikin07 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, very weakly. This is apparently a very recent organization. Not sure that it qualifies as a business, or a foundation, or what: but apparently they are some kind of enforcement tool directed against Internet pharmacies. This sort of work ought to generate some kind of notice in reliable sources, and in the version I read the only references were to internal sites or press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Garth from Knujon here. This Wiki article has been targeted frequently and anonymously by people benefiting from the sale of illicit pharmaceuticals. Please keep this in mind when reading any smear attempts against LegitScript, ask the authors to step forward and identify themselves. LegitScript is a VERY current and critical topic. It has been discussed in many media outlets including the New York Times ("the paper of Record") Report Identifies Rogue Pharmacy Web Sites and features on CNN (Anderson Cooper - 360) AC360 Daily Podcast: 06/25/2008. If it's not notable as some are claiming then why the obsession with deleting it? Gobruen (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Gobruen (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There seems to be some serious COI going on with this article. Millikin07 removed the COI tag, which I have reinserted. There is also a fair amount of paranoia, as evidenced in the comment above by Gobruen and Gobruen's comments at Talk:Legitscript. Also, look at the edit history of Jchkayaker and Millikin07. In addition, there is the issue of the funding of this business. All in all, this article is entirely self promotional and should be deleted. --Prowler08 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This comment is from LegitScript. We are requesting a neutral review by editors. That request, and this comment, are not meant to violate neutrality rules, but to ensure a result that adheres to Wikipedia policy. In the interests of neutrality, we monitor, but do not edit, the entry. It is important to understand that LegitScript is an enforcement tool and certification authority for Internet pharmacies; having shut down over 1,000 fake Internet pharmacy websites, this entry and our website are consistent targets of vandals and attempts to remove it from Wikipedia. Critics of LegitScript, including Prowler08 in the comment immediately above, have previously argued that the claimed lack of clarity about how Legitscript is funded should be grounds for deletion. However, that is not a ground for deletion under Wikipedia policy. Citing concerns about how the organization is funded as a grounds for concern suggests that the writer's complaint is about LegitScript itself, not the Wikipedia entry. Legitscript's only request is for a review by Wikipedia editors in a way that adheres to Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegitScript (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 January 2009

• Comment My statement above concerning funding is about a complete lack of information on the article's entry as to their funding, so it is about the WP entry. And I personally don't believe that it is not Legitscript doing the editing, as the edit histories of the users mentioned in my previous entry indicate. Also, the editor Gobruen is supposedly Garth Bruen, KnujOn.com CEO, and works with Legitscript and has edited the article and left comments on Talk:Legitscript, where there also are statements from the supposed CEO of Legitscript. --Prowler08 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Gobruen in response to Prowler08, we did edit the wiki page because previous comments complained of a lack of current notability. We added additional verifiable media sources. You can't ask us to produce something and then dismiss us when we produce it. Gobruen (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I agree there are WP:COI concerns here. Milikin07 seems to be a new single-purpose account. However, I think they've met WP:ORG requirements. You're unlikely to find peer reviewed journal articles about this sort of thing, but they have Reuters and NYT articles in there, a mention on CNN and so on. I think the authors need to get in the habit of signing everything they contribute, including to talk pages like this one, with ~~~~. Credibility is shaky when people have to go looking through history logs to identify you. I think they should also consider placing disclosures on user pages where an editor is directly connected with the company. I doubt this is official Wikipedia policy, I just think it might make good sense under the circumstances. Basie (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification I'm sure that request is to sign everything they contribute except in articles, where no one signs anything. Remembering to sign discussion comments is a problem that most new users have, but it is helpful if you make an effort to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, absolutely! Sorry that wasn't clear. Basie (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep It's clear there a folks who want the LegitScript article deleted for reasons other than stated, this is also a WP:COI. This attempt to make the issue of pharmacy verification go away is interesting on its own and is part of the story. The folks behind the vandalism and continued delete requests should propose a counter article or fully disclose their intent. Gobruen (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The refs from CNN, Reuters, and the NY times all qualify as WP:RS to me and thus meet WP:N. Though COI issues on one or both sides disturb me. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - there will be COI issues but that's hardly unusual. Based on the NABP's reference to Legitscript [1] plus media refs it is clearly notable enough for WP. Rd232 ^talk 09:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep - The references establish some notability, but they tend to mention LegitScript in passing and are not directly about the company/organization. (EhJJ)^TALK 13:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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.