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 delete. As Mark viking suggests, there should be "no prejudice to re-creation if more reliable sources become available". -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GVK Biosciences

[edit]

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

minimal information on company except from press releases and the occasional FDA filing. WP page is second hit in google search. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - Did any of you search Google News? Google News found some recent results and Google News archives provided results as well, although the second search does list some press releases. I won't establish my vote yet until I hear from some other users. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual recycled press releases. My vote is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

press releases. a couple of offhand mentions of mergers or contracts, but nothing that is specifically about the company itself to establish notability. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 13. Snotbot t • c » 02:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources that weren't lightly rewritten press releases were a challenge to find. Sources found:

Short article on Endo deal at BioPharm International site
Article on problems with regulators in the GVK-Wyeth partnership LiveMint was in association with the WSJ here, so probably reliable

BioPharm International articles, as opposed to press releases, are usually reliable and the LiveMint ref was not complimentary, so is likely independent and reliable. The LiveMint article was in depth, but the BioPharm article is a bit short to be considered in-depth for GVK. At this point, I only see one reliable source, not quite enough for general notability WP:GNG and short of that needed for corporation guidelines WP:CORPDEPTH. Unless more sources are found, the evidence suggests delete, with no prejudice to re-creation if more reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Seems to promote the company. Wikipedia is not made to advertize the companies for business purpose Jussychoulex (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (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.