Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EastGate Pharmaceuticals (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

EastGate Pharmaceuticals
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Weakly sourced (press releases only) article fails WP:CORPDEPTH Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from article creator Not only press release, so your reason to deletion is wrong. . Karlhard (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * delete no independent notability and close to no content. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A newbie editor lists that there is no independent notability, without an easy explanation to delete? Please check the references, and expand your reason for deletion. Karlhard (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh, Lem has been editing since 2010. That comment was extremely misleading.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not aware of any precedent about whether NASDAQ listing confers automatic notability. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, however I may cite a contributor:
 * "*Comment: I would have to look into this but prima facie I would say if the stock of a company is traded on NASDAQ it has some notability however, if the share price drops below $.10 we would be looking at an historical company. As far as the new editor someone can explain that the many failures of Thomas Edison didn't stop success. Otr500 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)" --- Karlhard (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * May I add WP:LISTED. Karlhard (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep same reason as first AfD. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm pretty amazed it was kept at the first AfD-- the reason referred to was that it was a new ed. who had written a great many unrelated articles and was clearly uninvolved, but that is not a reason for keeping, far from it, considering there is not one bit of evidence for notability. LISTED refers to the main board of the NYSE and the London SE and similar in other countries. It does not refer to NASDAQ. Multiple AfDs have accepted that tho some companies on NASDAQ are notable--even famous--, most of them are not. As for the references, ref 1 is a directory listing; ref.2 is straight PR from PR newswire; ref. 3 is a straight PR copied from PR newswire as it says right at the top, ref. 4 is a listing ; ref 5 is the directory entry in Bloomberg, including a listing of the firm's press releases.   DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG and general lack of reliable sources.  Nik the  stunned  16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as I also can't find any sources about the company besides listings, PR and basic information. Optimale  Gu 11:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with nom that it fails wp:corpdepth. There isn't even a single clear secondary reference, let alone the more-than-one needed to satisfy corpdepth. BakerStMD T&#124;C 19:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete although there's many stock markets, NASDAQ is a major one so the argument has merit, and an article would be useful for readers. Saying that, ultimately there's no automatic notability and NASDAQ is not NYSE so we must rely on sourcing which falls short here. (Little weight should be given to dismissing new editors or the promo editing by User:Karlhard.) Widefox ; talk 18:39, 29 March 2015 (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.