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. Argument to draftify is weakened by the absence of anyone saying they wish to work on it, and by the complete absence of sourcing; we aren't well served by draftifying original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean pharmaceutical policy[edit]

Chilean pharmaceutical policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page for many years, does not appear to me to be a way to verify the claims asserted. We could potentially redirect to Essential medicines policies but the section on Chile is unreferenced and there may be questions about whether that page needs WP:TNT as well. JMWt (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Chile. JMWt (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OP. I would consider altering my vote if sufficient sources were added establishing GNG. — Czello 09:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands. There is perhaps a good and even important article waiting to be written, but this isn't it. Athel cb (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately I agree with the above commenters. I think a better article could and should be written, and eventual deletion does not mean it should not be recreated. Much on the contrary, the topic has much potential. Bedivere (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft, as this appears to be a notable topic with, at least, potential for improvement. BD2412 T 17:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. One reason why I would like to see a good article on this subject (which I wouldn't be competent to write) is the following. The pharmaceutical industry in Chile is overwhelmingly dominated by two companies, Ahumadas and Cruz Verde. Together they would make a formidable obstacle to any change in the law along the lines of what is proposed in the article, but one could always hope. Athel cb (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't forget about Salcobrand. The three pharmaceuticals were involved a couple of years in a very controversial judicial case, when they colluded to increase the price of medicines. Bedivere (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. I see from the Internet that Salcobrand is indeed a major player, but for some reason I have never encountered it. My experience of Chile is mainly limited to Santiago, Valparaíso-Viña and Valdivia, and there are plenty of things I don't know. Athel cb (talk) 09:17, 4 March 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.