Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamnica (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. JForget 23:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jamnica (company)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I created it because I saw a few references from our other articles. It's a notable company in the country (Croatia), and they recently started exporting something to the US. I do not work for them, I just know about them, because everyone here does. BTW you can verify the stock exchange listing at the ZSE official site. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW your findsources links are off because they include our internal disambiguation suffix "(company)", but I have no idea if it would be improper of me to change the AFD heading when I'm an interested party as the article creator, so I'm just noting it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep From a quick search, it does appear to be notable. I added some references that i found. Are there any other issues? Silver  seren C 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a household word in the U.S., but definitely notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a business marketing consumer goods under its own brand, it seems to have already achieved enough recognition to pass under current guidelines. Some sources might be found here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough, plenty of references to cite. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Covered by independent sources, meets WP:ORG. GregorB (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as clearly covered by sufficient sources for notability, and this should have been clear to the nominator from the start.   DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 26 September 2009 (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.