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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna Biotec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Small Indian biochemical firm; the article previously claimed to be partnered with Siena Biotech (an Italian firm) and GlaxoSmithKline, but these claims seem to have been either misleading or entirely unsupported by the sources. The one remaining claim of involvement with a major partner is sourced to a press release from the company, which bears an astonishing similarity to this press release from the other Siena Biotech, here, with the names changed; the supposed partner, Omega, didn't issue a press release on their own site, and so I have real doubts about this claim.

If these claims are removed, we have a relatively small firm (revenues of 82M Rs. ~ 1M GPB, 1.5M USD) with no external sources provided to show its importance. The notability guidelines explicitly require significant coverage in secondary sources, and that simply isn't provided here. I've made some efforts to find any, but it's almost impossible to find anything about the firm that doesn't turn out to be discussing the Italian company. Shimgray | talk | 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm the one who removed the false claim. It does appear that this company is attempting to make it appear that it is more important than it is. The name similarity with a bigger company is also suspicious. I can't find any sources to show notability. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company looks like geographically limited to India with Name, The claim for International association with GSK is fairly possible, looking from techinical point of view, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease and oncology are quite complex diseases and the possible drugs are yet not there in Market. Simillarly Gabapentin and Pregabalin looks like in the International patient list of new pharmaceuticals Drug. However more expert openion is required on this subject.Whileships savedhead (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This user has been confirmed as a sock of the article's creator, User:X*biologist. Peacock (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The article requires lot of work to meet wikipedia standards, but recent activities with Omega Pharma is contradicting, Similar name also looks like a problem. The News link [[1]] clears some confusion, however I am giving it benefit of doubt, not very sure, I have added the same reference to the article main space.X*chemistry nerd (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This user has been confirmed as a sock of the article's creator, User:X*biologist. Peacock (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That press release (issued by the company) is an almost verbatim copy of this press release (PDF), with the partner changed to Omega and the quote sourced to someone at Sienna Biotec India - it still refers to "Verona", even! It's either a deliberate attempt to mislead, or an incredibly improbable coincidence. Note that Omega, the claimed partner, has not issued any such release. Shimgray | talk | 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. Press releases are not reliable sources for establishing notability, and are only useful for verifying claims by a company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although occasionally mentioned in the news, this company seems to fail WP:CORP because there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Peacock (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first reference says that the company is a "joint Indian venture of Siena Biotech S.p.A." (the Italian company), but the Italian company's website says nothing about it. This one's website looks impressive but almost everywhere you go on it (Company history, Mission, Values, Board of Diretors, Corporate Governance... ) you get the same page, this one, and everything after the first paragraph has been copied from here. What with all the sockpuppetry, the whole thing looks extremely fishy, and we should have nothing to do with it. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (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.