Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panacea Biotec


 * 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. Dead links do not qualify an article for deletion. Notability established with significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Panacea Biotec

 * – ( View AfD View log )

delete The artile main reference does not work Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dead links are an issue for cleanup, not deletion. A Google News search shows abundant RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dead links are not rationale for deletion, but both references in the article work anyway - I guess they were fixed since the nomination. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If people will notice the reference "New vaccines to lift sales at Panacea Biotec". International Herald Tribune. 18 August 2005. Retrieved 2009-03-05.... does not take us anywhere. also the second link is form 'AccessMyLibrary advertising network' so not trusted. If people can add references form relevent sources then we can think about this article.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 03:12, 17 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, BusterD (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy KeepDead links are not a reason for deletion. Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no requirement for sources to be freely available online, so the references in the article are perfectly valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I added several current references to the article. It is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in India. As noted by several people above, reference problems are not a reason for deletion, as long as the subject itself is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 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.