Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PharmaCann

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PharmaCann

[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)

Non-notable business, simple confirmation of existence, per sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of passing mentions, some interviews, but I cannot find any WP:SIRS sources. —siro χ o 04:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.businessinsider.com/cannabis-company-cronos-pharmacann-110-million-deal-new-york-2021-6 HistoryHopper (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have been adding references. Thank you. I encourage you to read WP:NCORP and find 2 or 3 sources that meet those requirements, which are a bit more strict than they are for other types of articles. The more sources added that don't meet the requirements, the harder it will be for editors to evaluate as the discussion progresses. —siro χ o 17:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure what everyone is using for references... There are pages (and I mean pages) after pages of sources, Google news section. HistoryHopper (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1]https://www.inquirer.com/philly/business/cannabis/cannabis-deal-medmen-pharmacann-fox-rothschild-20181015.html HistoryHopper (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing numerous Google News Sources. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is in very poor shape. Possible case of TNT. Okoslavia (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT not needed, I have now improved the article. Royal88888 (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 00:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources offered. It helps to link directly to sources that might be SIGCOV rather than to search results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with voters above that the company has a lot of news in Google. These are pretty good 1, 2, 3, and 4.Royal88888 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find ample newspaper coverage. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 01:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment - here's a source assessment table, evaluating sources we have so far with respect to WP:SIRS. A lot of non-independent coverage, a lot of routine coverage including a lot of "will they won't they" with "MedMen". —siro χ o 05:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Business Insider piece ("BI, Berke[7]") should be viewed without reference or use of the quoted material, in which case I'd class it as independent and reliable; the perennial sources reference notes to use caution in using it as a reliable source, not to dimiss it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Southern Maryland Chronicle[2]	(See comment below for deeper ORGIND analysis) Uses quotes representing subject, not completely independent as required by SIRS	?	?	✘ No
CNBC [3]	(See comment below for deeper ORGIND analysis) Uses quotes representing subject, not completely independent as required by SIRS		?	✘ No
Inquirer[4]	Uses quotes representing subject, not completely independent as required by SIRS		?	✘ No
Reuters[5]	no comment from subject		only concrete coverage is run-of-the-mill (paperwork for IPO, takeover offers). There is also speculative coverage. Does not meet CORPDEPTH	✘ No
Bloomberg[6]	"The Los Angeles-based cannabis company said Tuesday..." also quote from another non-independent party		?	✘ No
BI, Berke[7]	Quote from non-independent source	~ WP:BI	run of the mill, does not meet CORPDEPTH	✘ No
Addiction Center[8]	seems to be secondary independent coverage	?	run of the mill, no CORPDEPTH	✘ No
Denver Post[9]	Quote from rep		?	✘ No
MJBizDaily[10]	email interview with rep	?	?	✘ No
BI, Lee[11]	seems to be secondary & independent	~ WP:BI	run of the mill, not much focus on company, doesn't meet CORPDEPTH	✘ No
BizJournals (not sure of correct link so evaluating both [12] and [13]	quotes from rep		?	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. I find myself agreeing with siroxo's analysis. Thanks for putting together the source assessment table! None of the available sources meet all the standards of WP:NCORP, which means we don't have any sources suitable for establishing notability. The keep !voters really haven't addressed these concerns, and we can't establish notability based on a large volume of unsuitable sources. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge !vote ... I do think there is insuffient material for a standalone article. What about a section in the MedMen article?

User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bit in MedMen could make sense, there's a fair amount of non-SIRS coverage there. Does it make sense to leave a redirect? Maybe so, but it does seem a bit strange to redirect from one company to another. But maybe that's my own non-NPOV corporate perspective and a redirect like that is perfectly fine from an encyclopedia-building perspective. —siro χ o 04:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Could those arguing to Keep this article counter the source analysis that shows little reliable sourcing in the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per siroxo's thorough analysis of the article's sources. GuardianH (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because significant portions are quotes, doesn't mean it isn't independent. Southern Maryland Chronicle and CNBC, for example, also include lots of other third-party information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belichickoverbrady (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources meet WP:ORGIND. As a deeper evaluation of those two sources:

The Southern Maryland Chronicle is quite clearly not independent and has clear signs of churnalism. Parts not in quotes include, for example, As the doors of Verilife’s dispensaries open to recreational users, the company’s experienced staff will be ready to provide the highest quality cannabis products and educate consumers on responsible usage. By leveraging their extensive knowledge and expertise, PharmaCann aims to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for all customers. and PharmaCann’s Maryland Verilife dispensaries have been at the forefront of the state’s medical cannabis industry, catering to patients’ needs for several years. Now, with the expansion into recreational sales, the company is poised to meet the demands of a broader customer base while adhering to stringent regulatory standards.
The CNBC article is filled with information attributed to the CEO of MedMen (Bierman) who were attempting the acquisition at this time as well as referecncing a press release. Most of it is attributed even if not quoted. There is an possibly independent attribution to the Cowen Group of a prediction that is based on the (now failed) acquisition. It's difficult to evaluate the independence of that single sentence, but we do not have to, one statement attributed to another party along with some notes about share prices would not make this a SIRS source.

—siro χ o 00:14, 16 August 2023 (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.