![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because I have set out to provide factual information about the Company. The previous entry is a biased viewpoint intended to portray the Company in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swelgemoed ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments from the anon (who is pretty obviously Swelgemoed) include: " £2000 is not backed by the reference you provided, suggest deletion". Given that the title of the article is "Is £2,000 enough to be a drug guinea pig?" I'd be interested to know how he comes to that conclusion. Guy ( Help!) 18:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The entry about Richmond Pharmacology should provide some insight in what the organization does (like for example publish lots of papers). Cross references to other Wikipedia content such as /info/en/?search=Phase_I_clinical_trial or /info/en/?search=Glasgow_Clinical_Trials_Unit or /info/en/?search=Clinical_trials_unit would be useful and provide context. The company has published 100+ peer reviewed papers listed on google scholar and similar sites, the trials they sponsor (as opposed to the contract research referred to) are registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov/ Instead there is reference to two law-suits which are hardly defining the organization. There is anyway much better commentary on the cases and it is hard to see why a poorly researched and written summary would be of interest to someone searching Richmond Pharmacology on Wikipedia. This all smells of badmouthing a company for an undisclosed reason. Transparency!
The entry should either be deleted as a whole (the company has not initiated their entry) or written up properly. 188.29.165.205 ( talk) 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your changes. It was a big deal to retrospectively put requirements on trials that were already underway. The HRA tried to impose that, and after Richmond filed suit, they backed off that. That is one of the way that the suit changed along the way - one of the matters under litigation was resolved outside the court room... yes? Jytdog ( talk) 20:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, Richmond's other point, was that HRA said that the transparency regulations were based on law. The EU law doesn't kick in til next year. So the court said, "well duh". i don't know why you made it seem so complicated. Jytdog ( talk) 20:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I have read most of the actual sources. But whatever. Guy ( Help!) 22:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because I have set out to provide factual information about the Company. The previous entry is a biased viewpoint intended to portray the Company in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swelgemoed ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments from the anon (who is pretty obviously Swelgemoed) include: " £2000 is not backed by the reference you provided, suggest deletion". Given that the title of the article is "Is £2,000 enough to be a drug guinea pig?" I'd be interested to know how he comes to that conclusion. Guy ( Help!) 18:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The entry about Richmond Pharmacology should provide some insight in what the organization does (like for example publish lots of papers). Cross references to other Wikipedia content such as /info/en/?search=Phase_I_clinical_trial or /info/en/?search=Glasgow_Clinical_Trials_Unit or /info/en/?search=Clinical_trials_unit would be useful and provide context. The company has published 100+ peer reviewed papers listed on google scholar and similar sites, the trials they sponsor (as opposed to the contract research referred to) are registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov/ Instead there is reference to two law-suits which are hardly defining the organization. There is anyway much better commentary on the cases and it is hard to see why a poorly researched and written summary would be of interest to someone searching Richmond Pharmacology on Wikipedia. This all smells of badmouthing a company for an undisclosed reason. Transparency!
The entry should either be deleted as a whole (the company has not initiated their entry) or written up properly. 188.29.165.205 ( talk) 17:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your changes. It was a big deal to retrospectively put requirements on trials that were already underway. The HRA tried to impose that, and after Richmond filed suit, they backed off that. That is one of the way that the suit changed along the way - one of the matters under litigation was resolved outside the court room... yes? Jytdog ( talk) 20:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, Richmond's other point, was that HRA said that the transparency regulations were based on law. The EU law doesn't kick in til next year. So the court said, "well duh". i don't know why you made it seem so complicated. Jytdog ( talk) 20:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I have read most of the actual sources. But whatever. Guy ( Help!) 22:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)