Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRA Health Sciences


 * 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. No one outside the nominator has called for the article's deletion, so the clear consensus is keep. However, it does not appear that great effort has been extended to remove the promotional material, just a single addition of sourced material by (thank you). As an un-requested editorial, perhaps what we need is a new "purgatory" namespace, where we can place notable topics that are currently overly promotional, until such time as community effort is made to clean them. Yeah, that's unworkable, but.... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

PRA Health Sciences

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We could perhaps have an article on this organization but it would need to be completely rewritten from scratch. This page is sourced entirely inappropriately and is an advertising brochure. It was worse when I nominated it for speedy, but this is not something that a simple quick clean up will address -- it needs to be rewritten from scratch which is (ahem) part of the rationale for speedy-promo. As for the declining edit note: decline G11, text can be salvaged, as for sources - I suggest PROD or AfD as a better option) this is so odd... there is no content in WP without RS for it; WP summarizes what reliable sources say.  And who knows what those would bring.  That is what it means to re-write an article from scratch - somebody has to find independent sources, read them and summarize them.    So delete this per the original speedy nomination, which is appropriate grounds for an AfD. If somebody wants to try to create an actual WP article at some point that would be fine if they can find the independent reliable sources, but as this stands it is industrial waste dumped in our beautiful project.  Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  21:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * While I agree the article before Jytdog trimmed it resembled this and has clearly been written by somebody with a conflict of interest a mile wide, a quick scan of news sources showed pages and pages for this organisation, so I simply thought going to AfD would make more sense. I don't really have any strong opinions on whether this article stays or goes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This article doesn't have a lot of solid information, but there are a lot of results online for this company, and certainly sources could be found to support the article. Natureium (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed with above Waddie96 (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - public, $2B company, with >15,000 employees. I added a few sources. Passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:04, 3 April 2018 (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.