Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurobindo Pharma


 * 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   keep, I'll remove some more unreferenced or promotionally minded stuff from the article. Max Semenik (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Aurobindo Pharma

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The Artile is was created by sock puppet User:Projectmilap and has been blocked indefinitely. Also the artile is non referenced and raises major concern for wikipedia noteability criteria, the users are free to contribute and comment Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 13.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  06:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I understand the above should be Comment as I already nominiated it Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC) 
 * Keep The company appears to be notable based on its coverage in the financial press, particularly the Economic Times and the Hindu Business Line , and occasionally in the general press . The article needs to have some references added, but AfD is not for cleanup if the subject is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The artile was created by spammer, please read the content, its truly not wikipedia standards, written like an advertisement, please see the artilce history and current draft! that is the reason for nomination.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have struck out the word "delete" from your comment. Since you are the one who nominated the article for deletion, your "delete" !vote is already on record, and you only get to "vote" once. Of course, you can comment as much and as often as you like. Just don't begin your comment with the word "delete". Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article as written has some problems. But that is not the criterion for "keep" or "delete". The question is whether the subject is notable or not. If the subject is notable, the article can be fixed. Please see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There, I just cleaned up the article, deleted puffery/advertising, and added references. Now let's discuss whether the subject is notable - rather than the quality of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep : Company is notable and listed on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. Jethwarp (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The Important issue I want to raise is not about notability but sock puppet work User:Projectmilap and Nothing in the current article is with proper citation. The User who are willing to keep may consider contributing and adding references from where the information is coming. It raises a big concern of notability if the information references are not there in addition to stock puppets working for the company.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I already added several references to the article, as noted above. Since then you have put "citation needed" tags on pretty much every sentence except the one I added. Please understand that just because the references could be improved, that is not a reason to delete the article. And even though the article was originally written by a banned sockpuppet, it has since been heavily edited by other users. That is not a reason to delete the article if the subject is notable. And this company is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is still in less than stellar shape but a quick search reveals what appears to me to be sufficient independent significat coverage in reliable sources to keep the article. One source currently cited provides that the company had a profit of 14 million US Dollars, so it appears to be a major company. Hekerui (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2011 (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.