Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INC Research (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INC Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Tiny stub with poor sourcing, recreated. User:Kashmiri made some comments on talk about how this type of company receives little media attention, but as things stand, I don't see how this entry meets WP:GNGWP:NORG and how is it not against WP:YELLOWPAGES. They may be a big player in their mostly invisible pond, but that does not mean they are an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps a merger to Contract research organization where such organizations could be described in subsections would be a compromise? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accepting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I nevertheless need to draw a parallel between this company and other companies listed under Contract research organisation: here we have the same sector and comparable company size, revenue, trading status and media coverage as, say, IQVIA, PRA Health Sciences and PAREXEL, none of which has been AfD. The difference is, here we are dealing with a fairly new stub, by a single editor, which needs expansion and better sourcing. It is about a WP:LISTED corporation whose performance has attracted plenty of independent coverage as evidenced in a quick Google search. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete any coverage found seems to be announcements or business transactions. In my opinion fails WP:CORPDEPTH Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Adding a few sources: coverage in Bloomberg [1], Wake County press [2] ("an internationally recognized contract research organization... which operates in 40 countries around the globe"), also [3], [4] (far from trivial), [5]. Additionally there is a plethora of investment and stock analyses. In my experience as an editor, the above are absolutely sufficient to establish notability of this currently listed corporation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:AUD. Bloomberg is a routine coverage of potential business transaction; Raleigh's Wake County press is local, and ciscrp.org is a republished press release. I don't see coverage here that would allow for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is not a fairly new article, seven months have passed and it still contains but two sentences. Ifnord (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2018 (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.