- 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 redirect to Rogers Cable#History. As an ATD. If there is content that is pertinent to the target article, consider merge. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Aurora Cable Internet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a defunct small local cable television provider, not
properly sourced as passing
WP:CORPDEPTH. The only apparent notability claim here is that the company existed, and the only sources are a single
CRTC decision and a corporate press release -- and the strongest keep argument in the original discussion from 2005, that it provided some insight into why Aurora was one of the only suburbs in the entire
Greater Toronto Area that was still served by an independent local cable provider instead of by
Rogers Cable, became moot three years later when the company was acquired by none other than Rogers Cable.
This just doesn't have any notability claim "inherent" enough to withstand how little proper sourcing it has.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 18:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: a Proquest search (I cannot view the results) for "Aurora Cable" narrowed to the date range 1995-01-01 to 2009-12-31 returns many results, including a tiff between TSN and Aurora Cable, the acquisition by Rogers, shift to DOCSIS, telephone service via FCI Broadband, "blazing fast internet service" (possibly a puff/promo piece), effects of CRTC decision resulting in Rogers acquisition, and even community involvement such as providing tsunami relief. (Note that the search also includes hits for places in the US and Australia, which I've excluded from my list.) I refrain from providing a !vote, since I cannot assess the quality or relevance of those sources. Mind matrix 19:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep per the sources found by User:Mindmatrix plus WP:THREE (yes these were all written on the occasion of the Rogers acquisition, but the depth of coverage in the first two is so high it literally doesn't matter):
-
User:Bearcat is also reminded that a fact "becoming moot" is not relevant in a Wikipedia deletion discussion per
WP:NTEMP.
Modernponderer (
talk)
15:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I never said notability was temporary. But if the strongest notability claim that could be concocted at the time was a transient piece of trivia that wasn't even a genuine notability claim in the first place, then that trivia's failure to even remain true at all anymore hardly constitutes permanent notability in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the concerns raised in the AFD discussion be addressed through the editing of the article to standard. Would integration of the three aforementioned sources improve the article as to justify a "speedy keep" on the part of the nominator? Per AFD guidelines meant to better the platform and provide value to the readership; If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. It is actually much harder to improve an article than to advocate up/down (like an emperor) with an "aggressively toned" dialog in discussion. Flibbertigibbets ( talk) 22:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note for other editors: This user has been warned for WP:HOUNDING at their talk page (along with a detailed explanation of AfD policy which they dismissed), as they have reposted the same baseless accusations against me on three different pages including this AfD, which they have not otherwise participated in. Modernponderer ( talk) 23:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I never said notability was temporary. But if the strongest notability claim that could be concocted at the time was a transient piece of trivia that wasn't even a genuine notability claim in the first place, then that trivia's failure to even remain true at all anymore hardly constitutes permanent notability in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per sources above. If the best that the nominator found in a Proquest search was a "transient piece of trivia" then there is a WP:BEFORE failure. Nfitz ( talk) 22:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- The transient piece of trivia was the "notability" claim that was made in the previous deletion discussion. And I have never, not once in my entire Wikipedia career, failed to do any BEFORE work. Bearcat ( talk) 17:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 13:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We require references that discuss the *company* in detail and as per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews etc.
- Seeing as three particular references were put forward as reasons to Keep above, I'll focus on those to highlight their deficiencies in meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability:
- This from The Globe and Mail relies entirely on an interview with the founder's daughter, Linda, for the information about the company. Every second sentence attributes the information to her. There are also parts of the article that have nothing in particular to say about the company. Of the parts that deal with the company, there's nothing that I can point to as "Independent Content", no information that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
- This from YorkRegion also relies entirely on a discussion with Linda. When you remove those pieces directly attributed to Linda, the remaining bits lack any in-depth information about the company. Also fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
- This from Playback is based entirely on this PR announcement from Rogers. Fails ORGIND.
- None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.
HighKing
++
16:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:HighKing, I was quite surprised to see a "delete" rationale for this article with a detailed analysis of the sources I provided, so I've actually gone back and had a second look at the first two sources in case I had seriously misjudged them. However, I do stand by my assessment, for a few reasons:
- I do not think the claim the articles are entirely, or even overwhelmingly, based on interviews is accurate. There are a number of quotations in each, but they are interspersed with non-quoted material. This includes significant amounts of "independent content" (to address your other objection) that is clearly written by the article author, including numerous historical facts and figures about the company and its role in the community that are not attributed to its ownership. The
Globe and Mail article actually goes a step further, by explicitly pointing out that some of the figures are its own assessment and not that of the company:
While the financial details of the transaction have not been made public, with [...] an industry rule-of-thumb price of about $3,000 a subscriber, the Irvines could be clearing as much as $48-million from the deal.
- Even speaking to the interview portion of each article specifically, it is not automatically excluded from
WP:GNG consideration. In the list you provided of
quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews
, "interviews" have unlike the others no consensus for blanket exclusion for GNG. This is because an interview is generally not published by the interviewee themselves (as is the case with the other items in that list), but by the interviewer who has ultimate editorial control. There have been multiple highly-contentious discussions about the role of interviews for purposes of Wikipedia notability (some of which I was personally involved in), all of which ultimately ended without consensus as far as I am aware. However, there seems to be broad agreement (as exemplified at Wikipedia:Interviews, which is still only an essay for the exact reason of lacking consensus on the overall issue) that the more editorial oversight an interview has undergone, the more suitable it is for assessing the notability of the article subject. In this case, these are fundamentally articles that happen to contain interview content, not even interviews per se (as often seen in certain magazine sources, etc.), which puts them towards the end of the scale close to "fully acceptable for GNG". - While you are quite correct about the third source (thank you for pointing that out, as I was not aware even the quotations were the same!), I do not think the
ProQuest sources found by
User:Mindmatrix can simply be dismissed. Even if none of us can access the full content, there is enough metadata there to make an educated guess about both the quantity and quality of articles on the company. In fact it seems to me that
WP:PAYWALL actually requires us to take such sources into account:
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.
- I do not think the claim the articles are entirely, or even overwhelmingly, based on interviews is accurate. There are a number of quotations in each, but they are interspersed with non-quoted material. This includes significant amounts of "independent content" (to address your other objection) that is clearly written by the article author, including numerous historical facts and figures about the company and its role in the community that are not attributed to its ownership. The
Globe and Mail article actually goes a step further, by explicitly pointing out that some of the figures are its own assessment and not that of the company:
- Overall, I find that both of the first two sources have significant coverage, and even just on their own that would be sufficient to keep the article as that satisfies the "multiple reliable sources" requirement of GNG. With the addition of the ProQuest sources, I reaffirm my original "strong keep" !vote.
- Having done my due diligence in reevaluating my assessment, I would ask if you could please do likewise and consider whether the points I listed are sufficient to change the basis of your !vote.
Modernponderer (
talk)
01:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Response Thank you for your detailed response. Just also want to point out that essentially there are two types of reference. There are references that are used to support the facts/information within an article and for those, just about any WP:RS can be used including interviews, etc. The criteria for references used to establish notability is different.
- You say that the articles in question are
interspersed with non-quoted material
that isclearly written by the article author
and includingsignificant amounts of "independent content"
- I disagree. The content, tone and context of the "non-quoted material" provides no indications of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In fact in may cases the non-quoted material does not contain any in-depth information about the company at all, or when it does it is simply re-stating what was said. It is a very common format that can be found in just about all puff profile pieces. I've looked at each article again, but for me, there is nothing to indicate that the author has contributed any independent opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation/etc. You've highlighted one particular sentence as an example of "Independent Content" and I can agree that this appears to be the journalist's own opinion - but lets go through the entire article, remove the non-independent content and evaluate the remaining content against NCORP (and WP:CORPDEPTH in particular). If I do that to the articles in question, I really only have the odd sentence here and there remaining and taken together, fails CORPDEPTH. - This is (was) a company, therefore
WP:NCORP guidelines apply (as well as GNG). Since an interview is not "Independent Content", it is automatically excluded as per
WP:ORGIND. In addition, NCORP specifically states that
Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability
and includes "memoirs or interview by executives" in the list of examples. The essay also makes it clear that a very narrow selection of interviews (e.g. ones that show a depth of preparation such as memoirs, 60 minutes type programs which show secondary opinion/analysis) qualify for establishing notability and as I've already pointed out, none of those publications show any signs of secondary opinion/analysis (or sufficient to then go on to meet CORPDEPTH). - The quantity of sources is irrelevant for establishing notability of companies. As per WP:SIRS, each source must meet all of the criteria. Once we get a minimum of two that meet the criteria, we're happy that the topic meets NCORP.
- You say that the articles in question are
- In summary, you've evaluated the first two sources under GNG, which is not the appropriate guideline for establishing the notability of a company - you should instead evaluate against NCORP, which I have done, and in my opinion they do not meet that threshold.
HighKing
++
12:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you in turn for addressing my points. On the fundamental issue, which I see as being "signs of secondary opinion/analysis" as you put it, I think we may just have to agree to disagree. Put simply, to me these articles are not at all unusual among mainstream media coverage in terms of how much commentary they get from a source connected to the subject of discussion, and if we start throwing out otherwise rock-solid sources like this as "not independent" simply for incorporating such opinions we may very well end up deleting half of Wikipedia if not more. It's just an unreasonably high standard in my view, and more importantly one that is not in line with community consensus as I've seen expressed at other AfDs as well as in policy discussions.
- However, I would like to bring up a couple of other points from your response, which I do think are factually incorrect and thus worth pointing out:
- The point that "GNG [...] is not the appropriate guideline for establishing the notability of a company" (as opposed to NCORP) is contradicted by the very lede of
WP:N:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and (2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
The GNG is therefore applicable to all articles, whether there is also an SNG covering them or not, and either (or both) can be used to show an article's notability. - I think you misunderstood my point about the ProQuest sources. It's not about the quantity at all – it's that we're dismissing sources with a high potential of contributing to this article's notability for the sole reason that they are behind a paywall, which appears to be explicitly prohibited according to WP:PAYWALL (in some of the strongest language I've ever seen on a Wikipedia policy page – just starting with a blatant "do not", no "should" there).
- The point that "GNG [...] is not the appropriate guideline for establishing the notability of a company" (as opposed to NCORP) is contradicted by the very lede of
WP:N:
- Overall I do think we're unlikely to agree on this so I won't specifically ask for your response this time, but if you would like to address those additional points in particular please feel free to do so.
Modernponderer (
talk)
21:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you have a different interpretation of our guidelines (and even which is the appropriate one in this instance) and if we're not even on the same page, we're hardly likely to agree. I'll make some small further points.
- I agree that the articles referenced in an attempt to establish notability are not "unusual", but I would say in response that most "articles" on companies fail the NCORP criteria for establishing notability of companies. For the most part, unless blatantly obvious, most editors will assume that the sources being analysed are "rock-solid" (i.e. they meet WP:RS). When I bring up "Independent Content" I am not questioning the publication or the journalist in terms of any "functional independence" only "intellectual independence". In most cases the *content* is simply rehashed PR/Announcement/Interview which when you look at the references in this case, is precisely what has happened.
- It is a long-established consensus (and was even discussed at a recent Arbcom case looking at disruptions at AfD) that NCORP is the appropriate guideline for companies and organizations. The WP:SNG section in GNG which you have referenced confirms this to be the case. Also, it isn't a case that NCORP replaces GNG but that they are both looked at.
- Nobody has ignored ProQuest sources. PAYWALL is directed toward attempts at rejecting sources which may be used to support *content* in an article because it is behind a paywall. That is not what is happening here. At AfD we are not addressing content issues such as checking sources to see if they support the facts and information within the content of the article, so if your argument is that *all* sources must be looked at before we can reach consensus on notability, you are mistaken.
- I appreciate you might not agree with this response but I think you'll find most editors and especially those that spend time at company/organization related AfDs will disagree with your position. HighKing ++ 20:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you have a different interpretation of our guidelines (and even which is the appropriate one in this instance) and if we're not even on the same page, we're hardly likely to agree. I'll make some small further points.
- Having done my due diligence in reevaluating my assessment, I would ask if you could please do likewise and consider whether the points I listed are sufficient to change the basis of your !vote.
Modernponderer (
talk)
01:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NCORP is the relevant notability standard for a company, and I agree with HighKing's analysis of the sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This seems to be a run-of-the-mill local telecom provider. BD2412 T 03:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is pretty much every cable system's history in North America; start locally, become integrated into a regional provider just for cost efficiency purposes, and eventually it becomes part of a national company because customers just want stability/the same channel lineup/to their email address/not be stuck with a building's own terrible service. There is absolutely nothing special about this one-city cable system, not even as a spite house equivalent. The bulk of the article deals with completely ordinary public access and sports programming you would hope would be carried by a local cable system. Nate • ( chatter) 23:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Small internet provider from canada, there really isint much about it. Fails GNG. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 01:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge to Rogers Cable#History, who bought out the company. A brief merge could also be considered describing how it was the only cable provider in Aurora. Jumpytoo Talk 22:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Rogers Cable#History. As an ATD. If there is content that is pertinent to the target article, consider merge. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Aurora Cable Internet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a defunct small local cable television provider, not
properly sourced as passing
WP:CORPDEPTH. The only apparent notability claim here is that the company existed, and the only sources are a single
CRTC decision and a corporate press release -- and the strongest keep argument in the original discussion from 2005, that it provided some insight into why Aurora was one of the only suburbs in the entire
Greater Toronto Area that was still served by an independent local cable provider instead of by
Rogers Cable, became moot three years later when the company was acquired by none other than Rogers Cable.
This just doesn't have any notability claim "inherent" enough to withstand how little proper sourcing it has.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 18:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: a Proquest search (I cannot view the results) for "Aurora Cable" narrowed to the date range 1995-01-01 to 2009-12-31 returns many results, including a tiff between TSN and Aurora Cable, the acquisition by Rogers, shift to DOCSIS, telephone service via FCI Broadband, "blazing fast internet service" (possibly a puff/promo piece), effects of CRTC decision resulting in Rogers acquisition, and even community involvement such as providing tsunami relief. (Note that the search also includes hits for places in the US and Australia, which I've excluded from my list.) I refrain from providing a !vote, since I cannot assess the quality or relevance of those sources. Mind matrix 19:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep per the sources found by User:Mindmatrix plus WP:THREE (yes these were all written on the occasion of the Rogers acquisition, but the depth of coverage in the first two is so high it literally doesn't matter):
-
User:Bearcat is also reminded that a fact "becoming moot" is not relevant in a Wikipedia deletion discussion per
WP:NTEMP.
Modernponderer (
talk)
15:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I never said notability was temporary. But if the strongest notability claim that could be concocted at the time was a transient piece of trivia that wasn't even a genuine notability claim in the first place, then that trivia's failure to even remain true at all anymore hardly constitutes permanent notability in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the concerns raised in the AFD discussion be addressed through the editing of the article to standard. Would integration of the three aforementioned sources improve the article as to justify a "speedy keep" on the part of the nominator? Per AFD guidelines meant to better the platform and provide value to the readership; If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. It is actually much harder to improve an article than to advocate up/down (like an emperor) with an "aggressively toned" dialog in discussion. Flibbertigibbets ( talk) 22:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note for other editors: This user has been warned for WP:HOUNDING at their talk page (along with a detailed explanation of AfD policy which they dismissed), as they have reposted the same baseless accusations against me on three different pages including this AfD, which they have not otherwise participated in. Modernponderer ( talk) 23:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I never said notability was temporary. But if the strongest notability claim that could be concocted at the time was a transient piece of trivia that wasn't even a genuine notability claim in the first place, then that trivia's failure to even remain true at all anymore hardly constitutes permanent notability in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per sources above. If the best that the nominator found in a Proquest search was a "transient piece of trivia" then there is a WP:BEFORE failure. Nfitz ( talk) 22:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- The transient piece of trivia was the "notability" claim that was made in the previous deletion discussion. And I have never, not once in my entire Wikipedia career, failed to do any BEFORE work. Bearcat ( talk) 17:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 13:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We require references that discuss the *company* in detail and as per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews etc.
- Seeing as three particular references were put forward as reasons to Keep above, I'll focus on those to highlight their deficiencies in meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability:
- This from The Globe and Mail relies entirely on an interview with the founder's daughter, Linda, for the information about the company. Every second sentence attributes the information to her. There are also parts of the article that have nothing in particular to say about the company. Of the parts that deal with the company, there's nothing that I can point to as "Independent Content", no information that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the company. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
- This from YorkRegion also relies entirely on a discussion with Linda. When you remove those pieces directly attributed to Linda, the remaining bits lack any in-depth information about the company. Also fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
- This from Playback is based entirely on this PR announcement from Rogers. Fails ORGIND.
- None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.
HighKing
++
16:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:HighKing, I was quite surprised to see a "delete" rationale for this article with a detailed analysis of the sources I provided, so I've actually gone back and had a second look at the first two sources in case I had seriously misjudged them. However, I do stand by my assessment, for a few reasons:
- I do not think the claim the articles are entirely, or even overwhelmingly, based on interviews is accurate. There are a number of quotations in each, but they are interspersed with non-quoted material. This includes significant amounts of "independent content" (to address your other objection) that is clearly written by the article author, including numerous historical facts and figures about the company and its role in the community that are not attributed to its ownership. The
Globe and Mail article actually goes a step further, by explicitly pointing out that some of the figures are its own assessment and not that of the company:
While the financial details of the transaction have not been made public, with [...] an industry rule-of-thumb price of about $3,000 a subscriber, the Irvines could be clearing as much as $48-million from the deal.
- Even speaking to the interview portion of each article specifically, it is not automatically excluded from
WP:GNG consideration. In the list you provided of
quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews
, "interviews" have unlike the others no consensus for blanket exclusion for GNG. This is because an interview is generally not published by the interviewee themselves (as is the case with the other items in that list), but by the interviewer who has ultimate editorial control. There have been multiple highly-contentious discussions about the role of interviews for purposes of Wikipedia notability (some of which I was personally involved in), all of which ultimately ended without consensus as far as I am aware. However, there seems to be broad agreement (as exemplified at Wikipedia:Interviews, which is still only an essay for the exact reason of lacking consensus on the overall issue) that the more editorial oversight an interview has undergone, the more suitable it is for assessing the notability of the article subject. In this case, these are fundamentally articles that happen to contain interview content, not even interviews per se (as often seen in certain magazine sources, etc.), which puts them towards the end of the scale close to "fully acceptable for GNG". - While you are quite correct about the third source (thank you for pointing that out, as I was not aware even the quotations were the same!), I do not think the
ProQuest sources found by
User:Mindmatrix can simply be dismissed. Even if none of us can access the full content, there is enough metadata there to make an educated guess about both the quantity and quality of articles on the company. In fact it seems to me that
WP:PAYWALL actually requires us to take such sources into account:
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.
- I do not think the claim the articles are entirely, or even overwhelmingly, based on interviews is accurate. There are a number of quotations in each, but they are interspersed with non-quoted material. This includes significant amounts of "independent content" (to address your other objection) that is clearly written by the article author, including numerous historical facts and figures about the company and its role in the community that are not attributed to its ownership. The
Globe and Mail article actually goes a step further, by explicitly pointing out that some of the figures are its own assessment and not that of the company:
- Overall, I find that both of the first two sources have significant coverage, and even just on their own that would be sufficient to keep the article as that satisfies the "multiple reliable sources" requirement of GNG. With the addition of the ProQuest sources, I reaffirm my original "strong keep" !vote.
- Having done my due diligence in reevaluating my assessment, I would ask if you could please do likewise and consider whether the points I listed are sufficient to change the basis of your !vote.
Modernponderer (
talk)
01:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Response Thank you for your detailed response. Just also want to point out that essentially there are two types of reference. There are references that are used to support the facts/information within an article and for those, just about any WP:RS can be used including interviews, etc. The criteria for references used to establish notability is different.
- You say that the articles in question are
interspersed with non-quoted material
that isclearly written by the article author
and includingsignificant amounts of "independent content"
- I disagree. The content, tone and context of the "non-quoted material" provides no indications of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In fact in may cases the non-quoted material does not contain any in-depth information about the company at all, or when it does it is simply re-stating what was said. It is a very common format that can be found in just about all puff profile pieces. I've looked at each article again, but for me, there is nothing to indicate that the author has contributed any independent opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation/etc. You've highlighted one particular sentence as an example of "Independent Content" and I can agree that this appears to be the journalist's own opinion - but lets go through the entire article, remove the non-independent content and evaluate the remaining content against NCORP (and WP:CORPDEPTH in particular). If I do that to the articles in question, I really only have the odd sentence here and there remaining and taken together, fails CORPDEPTH. - This is (was) a company, therefore
WP:NCORP guidelines apply (as well as GNG). Since an interview is not "Independent Content", it is automatically excluded as per
WP:ORGIND. In addition, NCORP specifically states that
Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability
and includes "memoirs or interview by executives" in the list of examples. The essay also makes it clear that a very narrow selection of interviews (e.g. ones that show a depth of preparation such as memoirs, 60 minutes type programs which show secondary opinion/analysis) qualify for establishing notability and as I've already pointed out, none of those publications show any signs of secondary opinion/analysis (or sufficient to then go on to meet CORPDEPTH). - The quantity of sources is irrelevant for establishing notability of companies. As per WP:SIRS, each source must meet all of the criteria. Once we get a minimum of two that meet the criteria, we're happy that the topic meets NCORP.
- You say that the articles in question are
- In summary, you've evaluated the first two sources under GNG, which is not the appropriate guideline for establishing the notability of a company - you should instead evaluate against NCORP, which I have done, and in my opinion they do not meet that threshold.
HighKing
++
12:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you in turn for addressing my points. On the fundamental issue, which I see as being "signs of secondary opinion/analysis" as you put it, I think we may just have to agree to disagree. Put simply, to me these articles are not at all unusual among mainstream media coverage in terms of how much commentary they get from a source connected to the subject of discussion, and if we start throwing out otherwise rock-solid sources like this as "not independent" simply for incorporating such opinions we may very well end up deleting half of Wikipedia if not more. It's just an unreasonably high standard in my view, and more importantly one that is not in line with community consensus as I've seen expressed at other AfDs as well as in policy discussions.
- However, I would like to bring up a couple of other points from your response, which I do think are factually incorrect and thus worth pointing out:
- The point that "GNG [...] is not the appropriate guideline for establishing the notability of a company" (as opposed to NCORP) is contradicted by the very lede of
WP:N:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and (2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
The GNG is therefore applicable to all articles, whether there is also an SNG covering them or not, and either (or both) can be used to show an article's notability. - I think you misunderstood my point about the ProQuest sources. It's not about the quantity at all – it's that we're dismissing sources with a high potential of contributing to this article's notability for the sole reason that they are behind a paywall, which appears to be explicitly prohibited according to WP:PAYWALL (in some of the strongest language I've ever seen on a Wikipedia policy page – just starting with a blatant "do not", no "should" there).
- The point that "GNG [...] is not the appropriate guideline for establishing the notability of a company" (as opposed to NCORP) is contradicted by the very lede of
WP:N:
- Overall I do think we're unlikely to agree on this so I won't specifically ask for your response this time, but if you would like to address those additional points in particular please feel free to do so.
Modernponderer (
talk)
21:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you have a different interpretation of our guidelines (and even which is the appropriate one in this instance) and if we're not even on the same page, we're hardly likely to agree. I'll make some small further points.
- I agree that the articles referenced in an attempt to establish notability are not "unusual", but I would say in response that most "articles" on companies fail the NCORP criteria for establishing notability of companies. For the most part, unless blatantly obvious, most editors will assume that the sources being analysed are "rock-solid" (i.e. they meet WP:RS). When I bring up "Independent Content" I am not questioning the publication or the journalist in terms of any "functional independence" only "intellectual independence". In most cases the *content* is simply rehashed PR/Announcement/Interview which when you look at the references in this case, is precisely what has happened.
- It is a long-established consensus (and was even discussed at a recent Arbcom case looking at disruptions at AfD) that NCORP is the appropriate guideline for companies and organizations. The WP:SNG section in GNG which you have referenced confirms this to be the case. Also, it isn't a case that NCORP replaces GNG but that they are both looked at.
- Nobody has ignored ProQuest sources. PAYWALL is directed toward attempts at rejecting sources which may be used to support *content* in an article because it is behind a paywall. That is not what is happening here. At AfD we are not addressing content issues such as checking sources to see if they support the facts and information within the content of the article, so if your argument is that *all* sources must be looked at before we can reach consensus on notability, you are mistaken.
- I appreciate you might not agree with this response but I think you'll find most editors and especially those that spend time at company/organization related AfDs will disagree with your position. HighKing ++ 20:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you have a different interpretation of our guidelines (and even which is the appropriate one in this instance) and if we're not even on the same page, we're hardly likely to agree. I'll make some small further points.
- Having done my due diligence in reevaluating my assessment, I would ask if you could please do likewise and consider whether the points I listed are sufficient to change the basis of your !vote.
Modernponderer (
talk)
01:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NCORP is the relevant notability standard for a company, and I agree with HighKing's analysis of the sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This seems to be a run-of-the-mill local telecom provider. BD2412 T 03:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is pretty much every cable system's history in North America; start locally, become integrated into a regional provider just for cost efficiency purposes, and eventually it becomes part of a national company because customers just want stability/the same channel lineup/to their email address/not be stuck with a building's own terrible service. There is absolutely nothing special about this one-city cable system, not even as a spite house equivalent. The bulk of the article deals with completely ordinary public access and sports programming you would hope would be carried by a local cable system. Nate • ( chatter) 23:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Small internet provider from canada, there really isint much about it. Fails GNG. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 01:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge to Rogers Cable#History, who bought out the company. A brief merge could also be considered describing how it was the only cable provider in Aurora. Jumpytoo Talk 22:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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.