Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galenika (company)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Galenika (company)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability... Page references no secondary sources to establish this is a "major" pharmaceutical company. MrNerdHair (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

-- Added additional source concerning the article Buttons 05:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. According to Google news this company is notable for an explosion at one of their sites. VG &#x260E; 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google scholar pops 130+ hits while Google books has 250+. Will add a ref to help with notability. -- Banj e  b oi   22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Notice placed at WikiProject Business & Economics, WikiProject Pharmacology and WikiProject Serbia. -- Banj e  b oi   23:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Controlling 1/3 of the pharmaceutical market (although unsourced at the moment) in Serbia meets notability standards. Themfromspace (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the absence of citations from accessible, reliable sources. See WP:V. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. What do you mean by "accessible"? If you mean "freely available online" then there is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines that demands that. See WP:V. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Certainly has a strong enough assertion of notability. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick browse through the sources found by the Google Books search linked above shows obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 4 October 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.