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-admin closure) sst✈ 11:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Edge Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Small company that has yet to make a profit; evidence for notability is mere notices of approval (or lack of approval) of their laboratory and local news items from the region where their offices are. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm sorry, I think you are being unfair here. Although only a market cap of around $200m NZD, the company is large enough to be a constituent member of the NZX50 (the main index for the NZ Stock Exchange). That should make it relevant enough for inclusion. If there are companies that should be earmarked for deletion due to size and lack of profit, then might I suggest Snakk Media and GeoOp, which are less than $12m and $15m market cap respectively? PragmaticOutcome (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable at all. No reliable 3rd party sources as per WP:RS have coverage about it.Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 09:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Initially was dubious but I see a large number of sources in the article from the three major New Zealand print news sources; the Herald, stuff.co.nz and the Otago Daily Times so seems to easily pass WP:GNG. Mattlore (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the press coverage is interview-based pieces timed around company-generated posting with no critical evaluation --- classic PR stuff lacking independence. Only http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/853218 has real critical analysis, and that's of the treatment approach and hardly mentions the actual company. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As it says in WP:LISTED, companies listed on a stock exchange are not inherently notable, but "sufficient independent sources almost always exist". It's not just listed on the New Zealand Exchange, but it forms part of the NZX 50 Index, and those are the 50 biggest stocks by free-float market capitalisation. Therefore, any lack of reliable sources is most likely a case of editors not having had a good look at publications that deal with the business sector. A good source would thus be the National Business Review, and the case in point is that most of their archive is behind a paywall. Searching for "Pacific Edge" and then sorting for relevance (their default search order is by date) returns a good number of hits, and I cannot see how this company can be said to not be notable. Schwede66 18:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficiently large enough company to meet the minimum requirements for an article. Just needs better referencing NealeFamily (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2016 (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.