Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genevac

: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The result was Withdrawn. Schuym1 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Genevac]]=

:{{la|Genevac}} ([{{fullurl:Genevac|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genevac}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The main sources that I can find are company profiles and press releases. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&q=genevac&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn Significant coverage] to warrant article under WP:CORP. One of their products, centrifugal evaporator, has been received very well by industry ([http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Processing-QC/Centrifugal-evaporator], [http://www.drugresearcher.com/Tools-and-techniques/Genevac-launches-automated-evaporators-to-enhance-productivity], [http://www.drugresearcher.com/Tools-and-techniques/Genevac-launches-next-gen-evaporator]). The company has also received a [http://www.chemie.de/news/e/44488/?pw=a&defop=and&wild=yes&sdate=01/01/1995&edate=03/21/2005 notable award] for this product. ^LeaveSleaves 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.