Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pharmaceutical company with no evidence of notability. Sources are all own web-site or simple directory and share price listings. Nothing independent and reliable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals is a WP:LISTED company on the National Stock Exchange of India and Bombay Stock Exchange. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- a listed company with $1.2bln in annual revenues. I'm not finding much in depth coverage but the article could be useful if the company gets embroiled in some sort of scandal :-) . It's not terribly promotional at this point; otherwise, I'd be voting delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a pharmacist, I think this company has a notability. --محمود (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be notable. But the only statement in the article with an external source is their stock price. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. The article is poor but the topic is notable. Here is a Google Book reference referring to their growth strategy and there are other references such as this and this as well which are enough to establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a passing mention of drug discovery work they did on TRPA1. Not relevant to an N discussion. The book about the growth strateiges of indian pharma companies is in exactly one library. You provide no justification to keep this article. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per GNews search.~ d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence(

Also not a valid !keep vote. GNews is full of garbage. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep. i cleaned it up, removing SPS garbage and adding content based on independent sources in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing, presumably after cleanup. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.