Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd

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 no consensus. No clear consensus for deletion. Many fair arguments to keep. I'll express a personal concern that this might be a PR-related article; the final "keep" assertion by User:Bigtezstags raises my suspicion level further. Even "keep" !voter User:DGG favorably compares this page with "outrageously spammy promotional articles." Since page isn't overly promotional, and the page appears to pass GNG, I'll close this as no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been convinced that my evaluation of consensus in this procedure was incorrect, and at nobody's request, I'm amending my close to keep. My weighing of the arguments appears not to match the measurement of many editors outside this process. It has also been brought to my attention the wording I used in my closing statement might tend to lead a reader to conclude I was myself !voting. While that was not my intention, I accept that this may be a valid perception. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd

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

Non-Notable company, only interdependent mention i can find is in the Sacramento Bee the rest of the coverage is about the term not the company. So this fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Mt king ^(edits) 08:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm surprised that this article has been put forward for AfD. It might not be the best know org to the average layman but it has become well know to middle and higher management and and others within all sectors of the UK health care industry. It appears to prefer to be very secretive compared to other companies but that’s not the point, nor does it negate its notability within the UK.--Aspro (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that address the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ? Mt king ^(edits) 10:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just need to look in the right places [1]. Or would some of you prefer the medical community and their patients to read on WP, orgs that you only are familiar with? MLI is just like an industry funded (lap-dog?) version of [2]. Which is becoming more common in the UK - Saves the UK gov paying for a gov. dept to do it. Is it not also, often pointed out, that all WP articles are 'works in progress'? Reminds me of Jimmy Wales having his stub on Mzoli's deleted before he could develop it further. Wikipedia an online encyclopedia torn apart. As noted on the WP discussion boards, currently, WP seem to be suffering from too few editors with the specific knowledge and time, against, those with too much time and too little knowledge (except in the filed of wiki-lawyering perhaps). --Aspro (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quite know what point you are trying to make, but that first link does not mention the firm (well in the bit they allow the world to read). Mt king ^(edits) 11:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think Aspro has a valid point though. It is remarkably difficult to get UK and other European commercial organisations past the notability guidelines, even if they have turnover in the billions, thousands of employees, or even dozens of outlets. The media generally do not produce company profiles of the sort the guidelines look for, and where they exist the independence is illusory as the information necessarily comes from company sources. Perversely the consquence is that if a member of the public, or anyone else, wants to find out about them they cannot go to Wikipedia, and have to rely on the company's own website or at best a few unsubstantiated rumours elsewhere. This isn't an easy dilemma to overcome. If this organisation is well known in its own right in relevant circles it is concievable there is enough publicly available material to scrape past the notability test (it isn't just about Google) and if the information about the company is verifiable that might be enough for a keep. NPOV is important of course. I am sure that the industry would say that self regulation demonstrates their desire to ensure the accuracy of drug trial results and that there is no reason why the cost should fall on the taxpayer. This cannot be allowed to turn into an attack piece even though there is a reasonable expectation that the very existance of this company would interest a lot of people. --AJHingston (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. I'm having difficulty finding references that refer to this place. Responding to AJHingston, re "It is remarkably difficult to get UK and other European commercial organisations past the notability guidelines" - It can't get past the guidelines b/c either 1) It isn't notable or 2) It is notable and something is wrong with the guidelines. If you believe the later, take your discussion to the policy talk page. NickCT (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There really cannot be any doubt that the notability guidelines have an unintentional bias. Look at the ease with which bands, or professional sportspeople, or actors in popular soaps, get in compared with large organisations, public bodies, etc. Cases make policy - WP does not begin top down by devising a set of laws and principles and applying them systematically; if it did it is unlikely that it would have the current contradictions. Nominations for deletion need to be debated on their merits and if the guidelines cannot be made to fit then is the time to consider tweaking them. Note that I did not say that this article met them as things stand, just that Aspro has made a very fair case for why this organisation should be included - the topic of drug trial fraud is very notable and if it is true that this organisation is the agency of choice for investigating it then that would point toward inclusion. This isn't a piece of spam. --AJHingston (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this isn't spam. Obviously drug trail fraud is an interesting, and probably in many cases, a notable subject; however, you're basically making the argument that "X is notable. Y is closely related to X, so Y must be notable too", which is a bit of a fallacy.

I think what's good to remember here is that notability is largely based on public perception. Sure MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd might be more important than porn actress Sasha Grey, in that MLI may have had a more substantial impact on more lives. I'd still argue though that Sasha deserves a WP entry and MLI doesn't b/c Sasha garners more public attention than MLI. Notability is what the public/press/reliable sources find interesting and worth writing about. Sometimes things of great notability, might be of little importance or vice versa. I think folks often take "not notable" to mean "not important", and that's not the case. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP covers a lot of things that would not pass the notability test being used here. Whether something is 'famous' is used as test of notability, not an end in itself. Now, I'm in no position to say whether what Aspro is saying is true, but I assume good faith and my instincts tell me that the activities of this organisation are likely to be of great interest to journalists and others if they could get at them. Equally, the demands of client confidentiality mean that it is likely to be very well guarded. There may be no way round that, and deletion would presumably serve the interests of company and clients. But will it serve the interests of users? I think that the real difficulty with keeping it is actually verifiability, and that is a much bigger objection than notability at the moment. --AJHingston (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... Well look... I don't think the "It would be notable if it weren't so secretive" argument isn't a good one either. NickCT (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the sort of organisation that tends not to be referenced, for reasons discussed above. There's a good article about its work by its director in Pharmaletter a well known trade publication [3]--though obviously not 3rd party, it gives some perspective. The article isn't spam, there's evidence the material is factual, unless they're lying it's the leader in its field in the UK. I think it'll do. Considering the sort of outrageously spammy promotional articles we get, this one is responsible. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the arguments of AJHingston and DGG. I've copyedited the article and added another ext link to an NHS document which seems to be at least partly independent from the company. —SMALL JIM 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness, I found and added another online reference too. They are out there... —SMALL JIM 21:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The confirmation that MLI Ltd is the only company supported by the industry engaged in this work and the importance attached to its role, which is contained in the document by the National Institute for Health Research found by Smalljim, provides important confirmation of notability and content. The NIHR is certainly independent of the company. If MLI Ltd were an investigatory agency within government I do not think there would be the same reluctance to include it in WP, and the legal status should not matter. The boundaries are increasingly blurred in ares such as health care. --AJHingston (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company is not a secretive organisation, anyone who is in the Medical industry with an investigative requirement will know of or wil have used MLI. They have a long history and have very senior well educated and well placed senior management. They do not publicise or overtly draw attention to themselves because the vast majority of their caseloads are of a sensitive nature and they let their results speak for them. Image if your local investigation company started publically reporting its caseloads, I suggest they would not be around for long. The idea of deleting this entry because there is little information out is not a sensible option. The industry knows who they are and so do the senior managers who use their skills. There is plenty of information out there. List of Directors, addresses, even a few court reports. seek and ye shall find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtezstags (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Bigtezstags (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I only used the word 'secretive' because I was lost for a better superlative for a organization the doesn’t blow its trumpet and prefers to keep a low profile. WP is very US orientate and I find some editors here, assume European companies of any worth must also have PR companies blitzing the media with their message. Having said that, I think you summed them up much better.--Aspro (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2011 (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.