Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cato Research

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 per consensus, and per excellent reasoning provided by User:Ihcoyc. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cato Research

Cato Research (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable company (CSD A7), but it seems at least plausible that it might in fact satisfy the notability guidelines for corporations. It sure does get quite a few Google hits, if nothing else. Nominating the obtain further opinions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. I'd really like to see some Wikipedians familiar with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry comment here, but I'm not sure where to best reach them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The comparison with Quintiles on the talk page is rather generous -- Quintiles has a huge international profile, Cato not one I'd noticed. That said, there are many companies in the CRO category that I've never heard of, and which seem likely to be smaller than Cato. This is obviously started by someone within the company so I think the onus is on them to prove that they are worthy of inclusion by giving concrete details, rather than PR speak, and adding independent sources. I have dropped the creator a line with a link to the relevant notability guidelines to give them the chance to improve it. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: non consumer consultancy businesses need to show independent references and make a fairly strong case for notability at the start. This page itself seems to argue instead that it is notable because of its allegedly unique or innovative business model: This page is significant because Cato Research was the first CRO to establish a venture arm which exchanges development services for equity in early stage pharmaceutical companies ... Aside from the stylistic flaw of arguing notability in the article's text, this does not meet the criteria of independent, third-party notice that constitute the basic criterion for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2008 (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.