Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craven Laboratories


 * 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. Consensus to keep following the relist. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 20:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Craven Laboratories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I usually prod such articles, but this one is a bit different. There's a decent amount of coverage, but it's all one-event-ish: the company's fraud and conviction has received decent coverage (here's a 1991 NYT article ), and is still mentioned in passing. But that's it. I've not seen anything in-depth on the company to suggest it has stand alone notability. Through WP:CRIME applies to people, not companies, I think it logical to consider it: what is being discussed here is not the company, but the crime, hence WP:NCRIME is even more applicable. Still, per WP:NOTNEWS, and given that modern coverage is but a passing mention, I am not sure this could survive even if re-written as a crime article. And as this is really a tiny stub, I am leaning towards WP:NUKE - nothing to save here. Still, your opinions are much welcome: can we salvage this somehow? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This particular case, being the first of its kind, received a good deal of coverage, and therefore it is quite plausible that someone would come here looking for information.  It would not fall under CRIME because of the public significance and the amount of citations. It does need completion: was the owner convicted?  DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep.Redddbaron (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOREASON - if you cannot add a rationale, please don't add meaningless votes to AfD discussions. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I thought it was self evident I was agreeing with DGG both in keeping and that it needs expanded. I do know a certain amount of info, but I haven't had time to make any changes. Quite frankly any attempts I have made to dig either end me up in an anti Monsanto propaganda blog, a pro Monsanto apologist page, the people of Anniston Alabama vs- Monsanto lawsuit or the earlier EPA USDA scandals. Seems it may take more time than I have available to wade through it all for encyclopedic quality sources. But certainly I think some editor with the time could and should improve it as opposed to deletion.Redddbaron (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC) ps If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, I haven't found any source, this used to be either the largest lab of this type in the country or the largest in the world. It would be nice if that line of investigation were pursued where it didn't necessarily involve Monsanto.Redddbaron (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per DGG.  Substantial continuing coverage.  To answer the question above, the lab owner was sentenced to five years and a big fine in February 1994. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This lab and the testing fraud it was involved in are historically notable, for one, as a significant story in the development and regulation of pesticides in the US. A 2001 EPA Laboratory Fraud Work Group report noted:
 * "There have been several instances of high profile cases of laboratory fraud which have had major impacts on the regulatory programs involved. Craven Laboratories and its president, Don Craven, were prosecuted for falsifying data used to support pesticide registrations. The company was fined $15.4 million and Don Craven was sentenced to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine."|-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=3
 * There is more reliably sourced material available, the article can be expanded. (I came to this article because Craven Labs is currently the subject of a content discussion at the Glyphosate article.) --Tsavage (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as given by others; basically a well documented event with singificant real-world consequences, the essence of the notability requirements. Geogene (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2015 (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.