Deletion of Xero (company)

Comment: Clearly notable – market capitalisation exceeded NZ$10 billion in September 2019, giving it a rank of third in the list of most valuable New Zealand publicly listed companies, https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/115601594/xero-joins-elite-club-as-value-surges-past-10-billion as reported by Stuff. Moreover, the book ''https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Xero+For+Dummies%2C+4th+Edition-p-9780730363996 Xero for Dummies'', published by Wiley, is in its 4th edition, and per , "an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. ''For Dummies'')" is an example of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Why don't you plaster that decorative table all across this afd. One at the bottom too perhaps? Subsequent comments go to the bottom, by convention, you should know. I'll just leave a note for the closing admin to decide whether or not, both those nyt and wsj articles (and others like forbes, smh, stuff, techcrunch cited in the article currently), are so trivial that they fail corpdepth. A superficial reading like you may have likely done can give an impression of trivial coverage. But it doesn't take a lot to comprehend that the articles include commentary, analysis and overview of the business environment in which it operates along with the news of capital raises (not expansion, as you write) done by the company. In case someone has access to credit suisse plus, they can check the analyst reports for Xero. Thankfully the policy allows analyst reports 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTED)

Comment: Per . {{tq|Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.}} The nomination would have atleast made some sense if somehow this listed co. had no reliable sources before nomination. But the sources were already present in the article before. Citations include significant independent coverage from SMH, Forbes, Business Insider, Stuff (website)|Stuff, https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-xero-the-hero-for-new-zealand-stocks-1383882377?tesla=y WSJ, among others. It's apparent that the nominator has not followed  and, from the edit history of the article, the first two steps of  too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTED||WP:BEFORE||WP:ADPROMO)