Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedicAnimal

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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MedicAnimal

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

Non-notable business. Wikipedia is not a business directory the panda ₯’ 23:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I feel that these sources are just sufficient to meet CORP: [1] [2] [3]. SmartSE (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would claim that notability is not asserted. The references are promotional, and hence in my view not uninvolved third-party material.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its crap really, but they have the refs. Szzuk (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a strong case, but sufficient sources to meet notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:35, 19 May 2014 (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.