Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintiles

: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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[Quintiles]]=

:{{la|Quintiles}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Quintiles}})

non notable firm, promotional tone, only refs are self published (tagged since 2008), reads like a promotional website corporate history WuhWuzDat 19:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nomination: the only fully integrated bio pharmaceutical services company offering clinical, commercial, consulting and capital solutions worldwide. -25 notability points for "solutions", -25 for "worldwide", and -50 for "fully integrated". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment. I agree that the marketing bollocks-speak makes it far from clear, but this is in fact one of the largest conductors of clinical trials in the world. It's a pity that the article doesn't say so in plain English. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment Bombastic terminology is a reason for editing, it doesn't appear in any of the valid reasons for deletion, did you at least perform any search for reliable sources like I did and MelanieN did?

Keep Needs a massive trim and rewrite; 90% of the information should be thrown out. But the [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/quintiles-expands-stake-in-big-pharma/ New York Times] wrote a full article about it in 2010, calling it "the world’s biggest contract research organization". Also back in 1996 the [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C11FE3D5A0C7B8CDDA90994DE494D81 NYT] wrote a full article about the "high-flying" company. The company gets significant [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Quintiles%22 news hits] ranging from the Charlotte Observer to the Herald Scotland to Reuters India. I hate the article as written, but the company is clearly notable. Somebody should rewrite the article, removing the garbage and replacing it with what can be sourced (I don't have time or I'd do it myself). --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A mass of gobbledygook about a notable company. Solution: Keep it, stub it, add the NYT cites that MelanieN found as references, and then let it be rebuilt with reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the editor above, keep and convert to a brief referenced stub. doomgaze (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep coverage in New York Times and Wall Street Journal. It is one of the top 5 pharmaceutical CROs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Quintiles is the largest CRO in the pharma/clinical industry. 20,000+ employees and significant business links to most if not all of the major pharmaceuticals companies. The article needs to be ruthlessly chopped down and re-written, but absolutely not deleted. DoktorDec (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.