Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Marijuana, Inc. (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Marijuana, Inc.

Medical Marijuana, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This company has received a lot of coverage, but it's mostly in unreliable sources, and coverage in reliable sources is largely routine coverage. Source searches are not providing sources to meet the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Syrenka V (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems to be pretty notable , but does not meet the needed threshold/"requirements" (WP GNG and WP CORPDEPTH) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditCrunch (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Coverage in Money, The New York Times, and TheStreet.com satisfactorily establishes notability. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The Money source is a directory listing, the NYT article has one name mention, and the The Street article is mostly about Kannaway, which does not have an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Recommend changing citations/sources by including credible news articles and deleting any news releases or direct pick-up of news releases. The organization is notable.ctonih25

• Keep. The article is indeed currently written like an advertisement, but that does not affect notability — only the existence of suitable sources does. I've added a citation to an article in Forbes that was previously only referenced through a story on the company's own website. While that story is not exclusively about the company, it is covered in detail as a major player in the expansion of the cannabidiol market. I've also added a section "Critical reception", with a citation to a detailed and balanced profile in The Motley Fool. After weighing pros and cons, the profile concludes by advising investors against purchasing this stock, as I noted in the article under consideration. That conclusion serves as balance against the advertising-like character of much of the page. Note also that both of these references mention Kannaway — as a subsidiary of Medical Marijuana, Inc. While a separate Wikipedia page on Kannaway is probably not needed, the article in TheStreet — which is specifically about Kannaway as a newly acquired subsidiary of Medical Marijuana, Inc. — should definitely count as coverage of its new parent company.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: a Google search with the added term "high times" found a story from December 2016 in which High Times had listed Medical Marijuana, Inc. as #6 on a list of the 10 largest marijuana companies — and Axim Biotech as #5. I've added this to the section on "Notable media appearances". It also found, unexpectedly, a second profile in The Motley Fool from June 2017, by a different author. This second profile, like the first, advised against holding the stock; I've added it to the section on "Critical reception".

—Syrenka V (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep i just finished removing all of the promotional badly sourced content from this and rewrote it from scratch. My sense is that this is going to be a pain in the ass to keep neutral but it is ~marginally~ keepable. Part of that rewrite was merging the Kannalife article here, which had some decent sources (and a bunch of promotional trash that should never have been in WP). Most of the content here was penny-stock tracking trashy blogs and the company's own website and press releases. My !vote will flip to delete if that garbage is pushed back in - Wikipedia cannot become hijacked by penny stock floggers or trackers or what have you. That is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having examined the references listed in the article and produced by other editors above, none only one [edited - see below] meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either name-drops of the company, inclusions in lists or business profiles that rely on company materials and/or interviews/quotations from company sources. All of those references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and therefore the topic fails GNG. Can any of the editors above who believe this topic passes GNG please list below two or three references that they believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HighKing: Let's start with just one example, the first reference in the current version of page: Poway's cannabis conglomerate (Harvey 2015). This should be a good test of the merits of your arguments.

Note that both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND explicitly take the form of lists of criteria for lack (of depth or independence respectively), so you will need to state which particular criteria you think Harvey's article falls under. (Also, WP:CORPDEPTH allows for cases where a number of independent sources together can provide depth collectively even though no one source does so individually, but I doubt we will need that provision here.)

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syrenka V, you got me, that one is good. I've fixed my initial comment. Have you another and I will change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's move on to the second reference: The first pot stock billionaire says his penny stock could be a little high. Note that although the title of the article is a quotation from someone connected with the company (as an investor), the bulk of the information in it is from other sources; the quotation is used merely to set the context.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Syrenka V, in my opinion, the Forbes reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The first mention is in-passing (the main topic at that point in the former president Llamas). The second also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a mention in-passing in relation to how some shares issued to PhytoSphere were redistributed, in part, to the company. There's just not enough there to meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HighKing! Neither mention is in passing. Both are in aid of the author's analysis of questionable dealings in marijuana stocks, which is the central topic of the article. The first mention includes a statement that Medical Marijuana had disclosed that it was under SEC investigation, which is there for the purpose of establishing Llamas's dubious background. The second mention is in a paragraph whose first sentence is "There is another connection between CannaVest and Llamas", and the mention is for the purpose of elucidating that connection: "PhytoSphere, which distributed the shares to its sole owners, Medical Marijuana and..."

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and Thanks Syrenka V but for me they're "passing mentions". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 22 August 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.