Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tee-Comm Electronics

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. Sufficient reference found, consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tee-Comm Electronics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tee-Comm Electronics (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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I can't find anything other than passing mentions or business as usual primary documents/press releases. Through perhaps this could help ([1]), if anyone could get full version and check whether there's substantial third-party coverage? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 22:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Cunard well knows, the test is *not* "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which confuses more editors into thinking that the sources simply have to be unconnected with the company, but rather (as explained in detail in WP:ORGIND) must be both functionally and intellectually independent. Many of his deceptively selective quotations above omit the parts that show the reference fails intellectual independence. I randomly selected two references above (5 and 9) and both exclusively rely on connected sources. Most of the other references appear to be incidental and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a very few occasions when Cunard references something that meets the criteria for establishing notability but Cunard has ignored calls for him in the past to 1) Stop posting his references in this manner 2) Read NCORP, especially ORGIND. Since he can't be bothered, I don't see why others should take his efforts seriously either. I'm of the opinion that none of the individual references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing++ 13:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus (talk · contribs), what are your thoughts about the sources I provided above? Here is a summary of the information from the sources (sometimes closely paraphrased):
    1. In 1994, Tee-Comm was Canada's largest manufacturer of home satellite systems.
    2. In 1994, Tee-Comm had 60% of the Canadian satellite-TV market and 25% of the big U.S. market.
    3. Tee-Comm was a publicly traded company on the Toronto Stock Exchange and at one point had a market capitalization of $500 million.
    4. Tee-Comm attracted high-profile board members including Perrin Beatty.
    5. When the company went bankrupt, BMO Nesbitt Burns held a significant portion of the shares.
    6. Harvard Business Professor Nitin Nohria included Tee-Comm as an example of "demand lending" in his 1998 book The Portable MBA Desk Reference.
    7. The analysts Alvin Mirman of Gruntal & Co. Inc. and Philip Benson of MMI Group Inc. followed the company in the 1990s. There likely are numerous other analysts who have followed the company and written analyst reports about it because sources like Financial Post say, "Tee-Comm's track record for failing to meet optimistic financial projections seems to have scared several analysts away from the company." Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, analyst reports can be used to establish notability. It is difficult to obtain such analyst reports today because Tee-Comm went bankrupt 21 years ago.
    8. A 1995 Financial Post article interviews two analysts about Tee-Comm. One analyst says, "I expect the stock to sell off because they're losing credibility each time they miss a launch date". The second analyst says, "The only way the current price can be justified is if you think they're going to do well in the United States. I don't think they're going to pull it off. They still have to prove that their boxes work."
    9. The Toronto Star interviewed Philip Benson, an industry analyst at MMI Group Inc. about whether Tee-Comm could be saved from bankruptcy. Benson said, "Let's put it this way, I shook my head last weekend when I saw my neighbor at the cottage with a new AlphaStar dish."
    I think there is enough information here to demonstrate the company's significance. I think the sources have provided enough independent analysis of the company (from the analysts' critical comments, for example). What do you think?

    Cunard (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are delete !votes, this AFD can't be closed on that basis alone. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent sources by Cunard, who found numerous, significant pieces in major Canadian newspapers with national distribution. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Piotrus:, @Patar knight:, perhaps you or someone else could point me to any reference that meets the criteria for Intellectual Independence, specifically Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The best example I can find is the book "Much Ado about Culture: North American Trade Disputes" mentioned above but oddly enough, I cannot find the parts quoted - but even so there's enough in the book to meet the criteria for establishing notability. A minimum of two references are required. If you guys have found another, let me know and I'll change my current Delete !vote and the nom can be withdrawn. HighKing++ 14:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dispute the proposed deletion because this is a company that is the heritage of the first direct digital to home satellite TV service. KJRehberg (talk) 18:17, 18 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tee-Comm_Electronics&oldid=1220539479"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tee-Comm Electronics, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.