Talk:Fulhold Pharma

This talk page is open for discussion

Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability tag

This article appears to be non-notable. Most of the sources are primary ie press releases and statements published by intermediaries. The few that are published in secondary sources are merely passing mentions or short company bios at business websites. We are lacking secondary sources that give significant coverage of this company. At present it does not meet WP:ORG and may be a candidate for deletion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerns

Hi User:Philafrenzy I understand that you have some concerns about the current content in the article. I've tried to make the text as accurate to the sources as possible. If there is some inaccuracy I'd be happy to amend any errors. Which sentence concerns you. Let's look at the sources together. I'm sure we can come to some agreement. Which sentence and source would you like to discuss first?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Give me a moment to compare the two versions. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My concerns about your last version were:

• Lack of adequate lead
• References in the lead (contrary to MOS)
• Attribution of the fund suspension to the Belvedere link (probably true but not proven)
• Ful Hold Ltd purchase misdated and it was the new company that worked with Euprotec?
• I am uncertain that we should be quoting BizNews described the company as one of "four dubious British shell companies" and "worthless." My earlier version was more cautious.
• In products you say "It manufactures carbohydrate derived fulvic acid as an ingredient in medications for the flu, lips, mouth, throat, burns and the urinary tract" What disease of the lips, mouth, etc? I think we should just stick to "produces the patented CarboHydrate Derived Fulvic Acid (CHD-FA) and formulations containing that product" and leave the medical claims to the company.
• Why do we have "Administration" and not Officers, Directors or People? They aren't typists. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've undone the rollback again. It'll make it easier for us to ID the content you are concerned about. Let's take it one sentence at a time. Which sentence that I've added are you challenging. We'll look at the source together and create text that we both agree on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

All of the above! Philafrenzy (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Phil, thanks for listing your points of concern. Let's discuss each one.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead

You've indicated the lead is inadequate. I agree so I've placed a lead tag on the article. For an article this short I think a 2-3 sentence lead is sufficient. Per WP:LEAD the lead paragraph(s) is a summary of the body of the article. I'd like to suggest we finish our discussion of the content in the body and then expand the lead. Would that be alright with you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding references in the lead I believe WP:MOS permits citations in the lead if content is controversial or disputed. I placed the citation there as a courtesy for you so you could see where the information was obtained from. If the content is not disputed then I have no problem removing the citation. The MoneyWeb source says:

"In the ongoing fallout from the investigations into companies with links to Belvedere Management, two British companies.........Fulhold Pharma is a specialist pharmaceutical company"

If you agree that Fulhold is a British pharmaceutical company then I have no problem removing the citation in the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the cite in the lead. If needed we can add it back later.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Administration section heading

Administration is a general section title but I'm open to other suggestions. The General Motors and General Mills articles use the title: Corporate Governance. However, I would be willing to compromise and change the section heading to "Officers" until we have more than one sentence in the section. Would that be agreeable to you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The acquisition of Fulhold Limited

The MoneyWeb source says:

• " Its subsidiary, Ful Hold Limited, which it acquired in August 2014........"

The article text says: " In August 2015, the company acquired Ful Hold Limited"[1] are you disputing this statement?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Europrotec

The MoneyWeb source says:

• " Its subsidiary, Ful Hold Limited, which it acquired in August 2014, has been in operation since 2002 developing medicinal and nutritional uses for a patented active pharmaceutical ingredient."
• The Telegraph source which is dated 15 Apr 2013, says: "The business, [Europrotec] which is based in Manchester Science Park, is working with Mauritius-based firm Fulhold to develop a topical drug that will be carried in soldiers’ battlepacks."
  • The article text says: In August 2015, the company acquired Ful Hold Limited[1] which had worked on a topical drug for wounds with Euprotec in 2013.[5]

What is your issue with the current representation of the sources?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Medical claims

You are correct. Per WP:MEDRS we shouldn't use newspaper reports to make health claims. Thank you for reminding me of this. I've removed the text that implies health benefits for their products. The [Bloomberg source] says:

• "Fulhold Pharma Plc. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company produces carbohydrate derived fulvic acid and formulations containing this product"

The article currently says:

• It manufactures carbohydrate derived fulvic acid as an ingredient in medications.

Is that OK?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Biz News

This is a source that you placed in the article. The BizNews source says:

• “In its most recent “Fact Sheet” for “May 2015″, Kijani claimed to have the following assets under administration: USD 135 million, GBP19.5 million, and EUR 11.3 million. However, an investigation by OffshoreAlert discovered that all or most of its “assets” comprise worthless shares in four dubious British shell companies that are listed on stock exchanges in Denmark, England and Germany. The companies are Eligere Investments Plc, Fulhold Pharma Plc, Emerging Market Minerals Plc, formerly LP Hill Plc; and Teyuteme Oil Plc, formerly Azteka Plc.”[bold added]

That is the only mention of Fulhold in the entire article. How do you propose we summarize the information contained in this source?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made some edits to moderate the summary of the info reported in Biz News however, the company is only notable (so far) for its financial issues and they must be covered in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)