Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capsugel

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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capsugel

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

I tried to fix up the article, but in the end, it offers no information that can't be found on its website. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, (but are not limited to): [1], [2], (in Dutch) [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Proposal offers no valid reason for deletion, and Northamerica1000's links establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:18, 4 January 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.