Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cominar

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cominar (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)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability guidelines for organizations. The article, as it stands, has no independent, third party reliable source. All I can locate are a lot of trivial/routine coverage e.g. earnings statements and other announcements. Nothing which meets NCORP sourcing requirements. Jbh ^Talk 13:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn / Keep per sources below and note about analysts' reports being acceptable per NORG. Jbh ^Talk 12:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pending per review of below - massive failure to satisfy WP:NCORP. All the coverage I could find failed either primary/independent or WP:CORPDEPTH. No obvious redirect target, hence delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cominar is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. WP:LISTED states

All that, long, blockquote says is – if a company is listed there is a good chance there will be adequate sources so one should make sure to look. I looked and found none. Have you looked? Did you find any? If so will you share them? If they meet the NCORP requirements I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. Otherwise I do not understand the policy based relevance of your quote to your !vote – it has nothing to do with notability criteria and seems like an awful lot of text to ask about whether a good WP:BEFORE was done. Jbh ^Talk 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually an argument counter to your statement - it makes you further obliged to provide sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES applies. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Jbh ^Talk 19:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are commonly traded on major stock exchanges, even though they aren't "stocks" or even "companies" by the usual usage. REITs are essentially real estate mutual funds. Any guideline on how companies with stock trading on major exchanges should exclude REITs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. 2 sources, 1 is the company website, the other one looks decent, but is wrongly cited and in this case only proves that the company exists. » Shadowowl | talk 18:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Must be a mistake. Ottawa Business Journal article says it is "one of Canada's largest commercial property owners". -- Gprscrippers (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - owning property does not mean "notable." 2 refs only, including the REIT website, means "not notable". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  
  From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
  
  Analyst reports
  
  
  1. This 4 July 2018 article^WebCite from The Globe and Mail notes:
  2. This 12 March 2018 article^WebCite from The Globe and Mail notes:
  3. This 6 December 2010 article^WebCite from Financial Post notes:

     The article notes:

  4. This 10 November 2017 article^WebCite from Financial Post notes:
  5. This 4 October 2017 article^WebCite from Financial Post notes:
  6. This 5 January 2018 article^WebCite from Financial Post notes:

  https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/TSE/CUF_UN/price-target/^WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cominar to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The analyst reports from IA Financial Group's Industrial Alliance Securities, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, BMO Capital Markets, Scotiabank, Desjardins Group, Royal Bank of Canada, TD Securities, National Bank of Canada's National Bank Financial, Canaccord Genuity, Laurentian Bank of Canada, and Eight Capital are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.

  Cunard (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, reverted hatting of my comment which broke the formatting of the page and which I object to. Cunard (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverted hatting.

  Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments says collapsing is permitted for off-topic posts. My post is not off-topic. It directly addresses the notability concerns mentioned in the deletion nomination.

  The guideline says, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You do not have my permission to collapse my "keep" rationale and insert your personal opinion ("Possible, but disputed, sourcing") in between. Your collapsing of Eastmain (talk · contribs)'s quote and inserting your comment in between is also unacceptable as you did not receive Eastmain's permission either.

  From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." I object to your editing my comments. You should stop.

  Cunard (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard's analysis of analysts' analyses. MarginalCost (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note that none of those sources are acceptable per NCORP. They are all reports of regular events and financial/earnings/stock reports. Jbh ^Talk 11:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As Cunard points out, WP:NCORP explicitly mentions using analysts' reports as evidence of notability, this would seem to me exactly what was envisioned. Further, the newspaper articles, Globe & Mail especially, aren't just routine listings of numbers, but evaluation of the company's business strategy, opportunities, and threats. MarginalCost (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. WP:NCORP explicitly says analyst reports establish notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

  Cunard (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because I can't see any reason not to, but I don't at all like the look of the creator's edit history and his statement that he starts an article by taking information from the company's own website.Deb (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since this article was tagged for speedy, then normal deletion, I have continued to work on improving it. (It's literally my first stab at an article. They were a red link in an article about Quebec companies and I use to visit one of their malls while in college, hence the minor interest.) I have added a number of citations from the Financial Post newspaper and another source (Lexpert.ca, a law site) related to acquisitions, asset disposals, and fund raising. The outstanding items are from 1998 or earlier where online sources are rare. Hopefully I have managed to bring the article up to standards. ktrueman (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2018 (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.