Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ImmunoGen


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ImmunoGen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company article with no reliable sources, except some PR. No indication of importance. BiH (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Granted, the sources provided in the article are all primary or otherwise not independent, but there is plenty of independent coverage available. As a publicly traded company it gets all the usual financial coverage, and there is news coverage   and journal reporting  as well. The article needs some of these references added, but they are sufficient to show the company notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   15:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. Frankly any company publicly traded on major U.S. stock exchanges NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ should be deemed wikipedia-notable as a matter of policy/guideline/style.  I understand that there exists, explicitly, a statement that the wikipedia-notability is not assumed, however.  It's a waste of AFD attention to discuss these.  Maybe this repeats what MelanieN said above, but here is link to news headlines on the firm:  http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/imgn/news-headlines?page=2 .  Publicly traded firms are of obvious importance to readers, and there is automatically tons of well-reviewed information published about them (e.g. SEC filings), and plenty of coverage by financial analysts and press.  CALL FOR CLOSURE as obvious. -- do  ncr  am  02:01, 30 July 2014 (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.