Talk:Aurora Cannabis

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: British Columbia / Vancouver Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Vancouver (assessed as Low-importance).

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cannabis Low‑importance

	Cannabis portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Writer 12345 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA Per contribs)
MVardy89 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA percontribs)

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

de-orphaning[edit]

now linked from 4 articles - more to come - Paradise coyote (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add citations to new content[edit]

@User:Jytdog You added a lot of content, but where did it come from? It sounds like it was written by the company.

You really need to add some citations to news articles that confirm the content you added. Otherwise, it might be viewed as plagiarism. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add anything. I removed a lot, and I re-ordered things. yes it needs further work. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company IS in trouble financially at end of 2019[edit]

Let's discuss the coverage of the company, User:Zefr. Both of the recent changes you made seemed, to me, to be merely toning down the harsh reality that this company is in trouble. I ignored the previous deletion of some of the content I had added but then you made another revision...again, it seems to me that the primary intent was to tone down the content that indicates financial problems for Aurora.

If we have a section about the status at the end of 2019, and the status indicates they are in trouble, why does that become news coverage? (And the sub-head that I had written was indicating the financial problems. You revised it to Status.) These are just two recent articles that confirm their situation at the end of 2019:

Aurora Cannabis Inc. has put one of its largest greenhouses — located in Exeter, Ont. — up for sale for $17 million, as the company takes steps to reduce its expenses and boost its cash balance after a series of weak quarters that have sparked jitters amongst investors. https://business.financialpost.com/cannabis/cannabis-business/aurora-selling-exeter-greenhouse-in-bid-to-raise-cash-cut-expenses

 “This listing, for 75 per cent of former MedReleaf’s capacity, signals major writedowns ahead,” MKM Partners analyst Bill Kirk said in a note published Monday. “We are also discouraged with the visibility of Aurora’s strategy — investors were unaware Aurora was trying to sell Exeter,” despite a corporate update on Dec. 23. https://business.financialpost.com/cannabis/cannabis-business/aurora-cannabis-lists-greenhouse-for-sale-in-move-that-implies-massive-writedowns-analyst

The content I added today is not news coverage; it is part of the a snapshot of the company's status at the end of 2019. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As the Edit History will confirm, I had added the coverage of the positive aspects this company was experiencing in 2018. It was booming. At the end of 2019, it was in a slump. For Neutral POV, I believe that the history of Aurora needs to indicate both situations. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the Exeter greenhouse for sale is encyclopedic to show a trend. Adding "...to reduce its expenses and boost its cash balance after a series of weak quarters that have sparked jitters amongst investors" is the news interpretation that I think is newsy WP:RECENTISM, and unnecessary. Also, this is now "2020" content, so should be subheaded appropriately. --Zefr (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The trend is that the company has been experiencing poor results most of the year. The content I added merely stated the facts: as the company takes steps to reduce its expenses and boost its cash balance after a series of weak quarters. I did not add the interpretation: that have sparked jitters amongst investors

The Exeter greenhouse went on sale in 2019 as this quote confirmes: “We are also discouraged with the visibility of Aurora’s strategy — investors were unaware Aurora was trying to sell Exeter,” despite a corporate update on Dec. 23. It's just that the company kept it a secret until 2020.

And Aurora admitted on 23 December that it was trying to improve its cash position: Aurora has taken steps to proactively rationalize capital expenditures, reduce near term debt and bolster liquidity in an effort to position the Company for the long-term success. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/aurora-cannabis-provides-corporate-update-and-confirms-cannabis-2-0-roll-out-840754045.html Peter K Burian (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be tempted to write recent events into the article, however alarming the news. Think of the task as encyclopedia content. WP:RECENTISM says "an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view... and the 5 bullet list that follows that statement. "In the long-term, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, articles should be written from a neutral point of view without editorial bias." I feel you're favoring news reports rather than taking a 30,000 foot view which is where an encyclopedia should be. --Zefr (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then 70% of the content of the article should be deleted. Including all the wonderful things that happened before the company got into trouble. From 30,000 feet, I can see ten sentences in total for this article, about a relatively new company. But the tenth sentence would say they are in financial trouble. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DEFINITELY in trouble ... Aurora Cannabis May Miss Debt Covenants, Analysts Warn

January 10, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-10/aurora-cannabis-unlikely-to-meet-debt-covenants-analysts-warn With a C$360 million loan coming due in August 2021, at least three analysts have cautioned that the pot company may be unable to meet the covenants on that debt.

Aurora Cannabis stock tumbles toward 2 1/2-year low after another analyst turns bearish Jan 10, 2020 ... downgrade comes after Piper Sandler's Michael Lavery lowered his rating to sell and his price target to $1, also citing balance sheet concerns, as well as weak European Union sales. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is made in the article. Otherwise - again - for the encyclopedia, take the long-term view. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT. --Zefr (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr ... is WP:RECENTISM still a relevant concept? If so, why does Wikipedia cover breaking news issues such as Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752? That incident occurred this week (Jan. 8) and yet, there is a ton of coverage, including the fact that the plane was shot down by Iran: that info was released only 10 hours ago. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The company's troubles according to NASDAQ[edit]

A NASDAQ report this week does not seem optimistic

Is Aurora Cannabis the Titanic of Marijuana Stocks? https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/is-aurora-cannabis-the-titanic-of-marijuana-stocks-2020-01-26

The iceberg cometh? We can sum up the main knocks against Aurora Cannabis in three brief points:

The company remains unprofitable with no profits in sight. It has a boatload of debt. It's running out of cash and will have to dilute shares further to stay afloat. All of these statements are demonstrably true.

Aurora continues to lose a lot of money. Don't be fooled by the company's positive net income of 10.7 million in Canadian dollars in its fiscal 2020 first-quarter results. That paper profit resulted from a big unrealized gain on the revaluation of Aurora's liability for its 2024 convertible senior notes. And that gain stemmed from Aurora's share price plunging during the quarter. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter - please observe WP:NOTFORUM on the talk page. You are opinionating on news (there are contrary views by Aurora analysts during January 2020, feeling bullish about Cannabis 2.0 and 3.0). We are here to discuss how to improve the article, not to report news and personal opinions; WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:SYNTH. --Zefr (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]