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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Pharmacology[edit]

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

I started to question this organization's notability, because I noticed most of the article is about legal or political events the company commented on, and not about the company itself. I could not find any sources to verify basic facts, like its foundation date and founder. It also turns out the company's revenues are only $11.4 million[1]

When I looked at the sources currently used in the article, citation 3 looks to be a law firm's website and citation 4 is a primary source/court document. The two reliable sources (1 & 2) just mention Richmond's opposition to the HRA's proposal and are far from passing WP:CORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. It would be much more sensible to include the properly sourced content on the HRA page. CorporateM (Talk) 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was little coverage prior to the attempt to shoot down the All Trials initiative, but quite a lot since. This is not the first time they have been involved in potentially far-reaching legal cases. Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Chester Overseas Ltd and others was also reported, as [2014] EWHC 2692, and there are others. The Highbeam search has several non-trivial sources, including a second on payment for trial involvement, which I know is not uncommon but seems to come as a shock to UK citizens. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company is the subject of numerous reliable sources: a piece in The Guardian cited in the article, New Scientist, the Mirror, the Phamaceutical Journal (house organ of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society), etc. etc. etc. Nor are these passing mentions; Richmond is as at the center of the coverage in question. Not even a borderline case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all about HRA's initiative and/or Richmond Pharmacology's opposition to it. I don't think it makes sense to create a company article about a trivial organization on the basis of a single event that attracted media coverage. When we do create articles about a single event, the articles are usually titled appropriately, like Richmond Pharmacology's opposition to HRA's initiative, but naturally it would make much more sense to register their opposition on the page about the initiative, rather than creating an article about the company that focuses entirely on this one issue. CorporateM (Talk) 17:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant. Involvement in something as potentially significant as this, with a judicial review against an important official body, is notable even if it were the only mention of the company, which it isn't actually. I understand the firm don't like the article, the solution is for them to propose additional content (rather than whitewashing, which is what they have tried to date). Guy (Help!) 20:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Scholar search shows the company's involvement in approaching 100 published trials. The Highbeam search and the recent news stories relating to the court case add to its notability. Clearly the ongoing case needs to be covered from a NPOV but poor editing here should not lead to deletion of a small but notable early phase CRO. Jrfw51 (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The company is probably most new-worthy for having taken the lead in opposition to overbearing regulations, but the fact that most of its activities are not ones that get great publicity does not mean that it is not notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any references to that, do you have a cite? Guy (Help!) 23:24, 13 August 2015 (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.