Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philidor Rx Services


 * 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 was to keep. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 15:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Philidor Rx Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recently, the consensus at Notability (organizations) guideline resulted in a section (disclaimer: I supported adding it, and I am it's co-author): based on WP:BIO, we now require that to estabilish notability, companies have to be notable for more than one news-worthy event (also, see WP:NOTNEWS. The subject here is a pharmacy that received coverage, recently, due to troubles of its Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (where there is already a section about it). I do not believe that this pharmacy has stand-alone notability, per NOTNEWS, CORPONEVENT, and otherwise failing NCOMPANY. Given the controversial coverage, WP:CRIMINAL also has some relevance here. PS. I'll ping users who participated in the NCOMPANY discussion to add the CORPONEVENT section: ping User:Jbhunley, User:WhatamIdoing, User:The Drover&, User:Blueboar - would you agree with me that this is a good case to test our understanding of this new section? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think if this is considered to fall within that parameter, the parameter needs to go: there are a ton of sources about this company and they're only about "one issue" in a really broadly (too broadly) defined sense - if that. Half of Wikipedia's business content could go on that definition. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    11:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    11:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Week Keep - while I would agree that most of the coverage focuses on Valeant Pharmaceuticals and its troubles, I think that there is enough coverage of the parent company (with a broader focus) to make this more than just a ONE EVENT article. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The change to the notability guideline was not supported by a sufficient consensus and I have removed it. The idea that, even if it were valid it would justify removal is thoroughly wrong: The underlying event was highly prominent, with extended coverage in US national media like the New York Times, the organization's role in the event was not minor but central, and there is no reason to believe the organization will remain low-profile, especially since it's already become rather high-profile. Corporations are not people, and the special considerations that underlie BLP1E have absolutely no applicability to matters like this. This deletion and whatever precedent it would set would be a godsend to corporate publicists and those trying to cover up business malfeasance, and do serious damage to Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 November 2015‎
 * The more important question isn't whether it meets a particular line in a guideline; the more important question is what encyclopedic value is provided. So far, your argument appears to be that having a separate article about this business will help WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  I'm not going to buy the argument that media coverage for 13 days (from 19 October to 02 November 2015) is "extended".  Any other arguments?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure but perhaps delete for now unless better coverage can be found. SwisterTwister   talk  23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears that the change to the notability guideline is no longer present and in any case would be contradictory -- an interesting event that is well covered in the sources would make a company notable. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if, so far, we have evidence that it was "interesting" for only 13 days? Picture this five years from now.  Would you still want to have an article about a company that was in news for 13 days five years ago?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? If we were to delete old articles that were no longer timely, there would be a lot of interesting articles getting deleted. Sbwoodside (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stuff that looks interesting at one point, but like a media flash-in-the-pan later, gets deleted all the time. (You do realize that "It's interesting" is actually on the list of invalid arguments against deletion, right?)  WP:Notability requires "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" for subjects to have separate, stand-alone articles.  "Thirteen days" is not generally considered to meet "over a period of time". Of course, the lack of separate notability for this business doesn't mean that the interesting bits don't belong in the English Wikipedia; it just means that they don't belong on a completely separate page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly I should have worded it as "interesting articles about notable subjects". In any case, WP:Notability doesn't define a time factor except for BLPs, and states: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". See also Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) for a discussion on single events. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Valeant Pharmaceuticals. There's little to be said about the business except that it may have been operated by Valeant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, oppose merge per The Drover's Wife and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The company passes Notability. I oppose a merge because there is enough information in Philidor Rx Services for it to be a stand-alone article. A merge would either lose information or be undue weight for the parent article. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 15 November 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.