Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Dow

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Martin Dow

Martin Dow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. The only sources that seem to pop up are primary, and the one Bloomberg source links to nothing. When I searched for Martin Down on Bloomberg's website no matches came up. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found, I do not think this company is notable enough for its own WP page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. Seems spammy. South Nashua (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete As being G11-worthy; and as per above, what remains when the promo is removed is insufficiently notable to stand alone. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The fight against spam sometimes goes too far. Here, we have an established pharmaceutical company with over 1000 employees, located in a major country armed with nuclear weapons, and covered in reliable sources such as this article that reports that French President Francois Hollande was attending the dedication of a factory owned by this company. On the other hand, articles about tech start-ups with a dozen employees clog our pages. We ought to get our priorities straight. Keep, expand and improve this article about this notable company, and delete the actual garbage instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - while the "keep" arguments are weak, there do appear to be potentially more good sources in addition to the one about the price-fixing arrest. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Keeping pages like VaxGen, UrgentRx and GenVec, but not keeping Martin Dow would amount to systematic bias. Besides, enough sources have now been cited to prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.165.192 (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep -- has been a subject of government investigation, such as covered here link. Large, on-going business concern. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Does the author have an affiliation with the company? I previously asked that question on my talk page after I had originally tagged the page for speedy deletion. I am aware that this question isn't directly relevant to whether to keep the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as per more recent comments concerning notable controversies about company. (I note that I originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, but it was unsourced at the time.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2017 (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.