Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EastGate Pharmaceuticals

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. No consensus to delete. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EastGate Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and no independent sources seem to be available, just a few press releases. Nik thestunned 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now or userfy. Yes, this is a tiny company worth only ~$50,000 in total shares outstanding, however my main concern is WP:Bite. The primary author is a new editor who only joined on September 2014 and he already has a bunch of deletion nominations on unrelated article. Based on the wide varied subjects he edits per Xtools, he's clearly independent of those companies he's written about. He's hardly two months old and has already contributed to over 300 unique pages. In order to avoid discouraging him, we should avoid deleting all these article and kindly point out that he should be reviewing the notability guidelines. I'd be open to revisiting this article in AfD in a few months. (Note: may include this argument in multiple AfDs) —CodeHydro 18:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Eastgate Biotech, Inc. Enough cites to be WP:GNG are available if one searches under all the relevant names. I am also disturbed that the first CSD was so soon after the last create edit that there was not possibly enough time to have done any significant type of WP:BEFORE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything under that name but press releases and stock information.1,2 Is that l+atter an indicator of notability? You got some reliable source I can see? Nik thestunned 09:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't entirely sure on the rules of this but I have found that per WP:LISTED: "independent press coverage and analyst reports" should be found for publicly traded corporations. I can't find anything like this for either of the names here =/ Nik thestunned 09:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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.