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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hemofarm Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability, page provides no secondary sources other than the company's own site to establish it as a "major pharmaceutical company". MrNerdHair (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Other sources have now been provided including its "major" presence in the country. Buttons 06:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There are some marginal mentions in Google News (see rescue tag) but nothing significant. VG ☎ 19:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They were the leading pharmaceutical company in sales in 2004; google books gives 60+ hits, Google scholar 50+. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Notice placed at WikiProject Business & Economics, WikiProject Pharmacology and WikiProject Serbia. -- Banjeboi 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources which are a requirement of the verifiability policy. Most of the citations provided are to the company's own website. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Company with 50 year history, many subsidiary companies, a basketball team, and a ton of easily found refrences. The fact that we can find English sources for this Serbian company means that it's way more notable than it seems, which already easily passes our requirements. Do a google book or news search next time before going to AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They have a basketball team!!!Delete. The number of hits on Google Books goes down significantly if you only search for "Hemofarm", and by inspection, most of the references are of the most passing variety. Might be worth mentioning them in the STADA Arzneimittel page, but this doesn't merit a merger discussion. Bongomatic (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Actually the number of Google Books hits for just "Hemofarm" is 62. It doesn't go down at all from the search linked by Benjiboi. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a well sourced article on an obviously notable company. Are we really considering deleting an article on a company which is reliably sourced to have 45% of Serbia's pharmeceutical market? How on earth can anyone claim that that's in the best interests of the encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources added to the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2008 (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.