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. The "keep" arguments are not the strongest but there is clearly no consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Cambrex Corporation

Cambrex Corporation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Clear business PR as the sources are not satisfying our policies about companies and what they contain, this search emphasizes there's then nothing but PR and what they've said themselves in their own publishings; none of this is inherited any automatic notability simply because of the stock exchange or the fact they have a few million in income, because WP:NOT has a higher place in this and it allows removal of anything used as a business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unsourced corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange with more than $400 million in revenue in a key area in the pharmaceutical field. The claim of "corporate spam" is patently false and if there is anything that constitutes "spam", the proper solution is editing, not deletion. There are ample sources about the company available in a Google search using Cambrex or its ticker symbol CBM as a search term. Alansohn ( talk) 05:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep company is certainly notable, the article just needs to be expanded. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As a quick news search will readily show, there are hundreds of recent articles in reliable independent sources about this company's business activities. The article in its current state certainly needs those independent sources added to it, but the tone and content don't strike me as promotional. Problems with this article should be dealt with through editing, not through deletion. Gnome de plume ( talk) 20:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Which of these sources are substantial, https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cambrex+Corporation%22&tbm=nws ? Because what I see are tech blogs, announcements, listings, quotes and other similar triviality? SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• comment SwisterTwister, you put this as a second nomination but I can't seem to find the first nomination. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, company listed on NYSE. PK T(alk) 22:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - So currently all we have for substance is the NYSE, but our policies specifically need good substantial coverage, in which I'm only finding trivial business announcements, press releases and all. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- by "corporate spam" I mean this:

• In 2007, the firm decided to focus on its core competencies... (promo content)
• Steve Klosk was appointed CEO, while remaining President... (non notable CEO)
• To broaden their biocatalysis platform... (promo language)
• In 2014, they acquired Zenara Pharma to enhance its drug product formulation capabilities... (promo language)

Each sentence is basically promotion. This content belongs on the company web site, not in an encyclopedia. No sources have been presented at this AfD that provide independent, reliable coverage. WP:LISTED is not a pass to a "free article" absent sources and with a clear violation of WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:30, 20 January 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.