Talk:Cannabis Science

Secondary Sources

Secondary Sources for company info? Would secondary sources be available or applicable in this situation? I realize these are press releases from the company, but I don't know how I would get secondary sources for information about the companies goals/progress. The press releases could be linked from a website other than the companies, would that make it any different?

I understand the problems with sources such as these, but I can't find any others with the same information.

Any thoughts here?

Delysid126 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I found some secondary news sources on the cancer patients. Should I keep the companies reports as references or change them to external links now?

I wanted to keep the reference to the press release stating their goal also.

Delysid126 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I added a bunch of secondary sources, but am keeping what I feel is relevant company information. The article now relies more on secondary sources for the main data and company releases for goals and recent developments, as well as the patient reports.

I am removing the tags, feel free to add them back, but please write here which references or information needs editing. Thanks!

Delysid126 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I contest this is spam or not notable. Cannabis has shown great potential to treat cancers as well as many other diseases. This is one of the only companies working towards giving these cures to the public. I can remove the companies PRs if that if what the concern is. The other references are from third party news organizations. They may not be mainstream, but they are still legitimate journalism. This has not received much mainstream media attention yet, but these references are real.

Please tell me what would be considered the spam or expand on what is not notable if you want to put back a deletion notice. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delysid126 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the references present do not show that the company meets the general notability guideline.

• Ref 1 consists of financial statistics, no significant coverage.
• Ref 2 is a primary source which doesn't count for notability.
• Ref 3 mentions the company, but the discussion with those interviewed is not about the company.
• Refs 4 and 5 contains no mention of the company.
• Ref 6 mentions the company only in passing.
• Ref 7 is a conference schedule, no significant coverage.
• Ref 8 is a press release, which doesn't count for notability.
• Refs 9 to 11 are are primary sources and thus can't count for notability either.

CtP (t • c) 16:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The article now has many secondary sources. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)