- 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 no consensus. There are relatively strong arguments on both sides of this debate. Those supporting deletion successfully establish the lack of significant third-party coverage, yet those supporting keeping the article note the success of the business, while it does not make the subject inherently notable, contributes to an argument thereof, and some argue that there are sufficient sources for inclusion (e.g., Ktr101). However, no one is arguing that the article should be deleted solely because it is of low quality, thus refuting one argument by a supporter of keeping. Ultimately, this discussion has gone on for over a month, and I am unconvinced that another seven days will facilitate reaching a consensus, so I will close this discussion as no consensus with no prejudice against a renomination if additional information on either side manifests itself. Go Phightins ! 00:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc.
- Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources for significance. Everything here is either from the company website, or a press release, or a mere notice. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies). PS. Regarding the fact that the company is listed at NASDAQ, per WP:LISTED, it's not enough. Please find proper, reliable sources, add them to the article, and WP:ECHO me to review them and reconsider my vote once this happens. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 11:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 11:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Additional references have been added; they continue to be press releases or mere routine mentions; most are simply downright press releases from BusinessWire or reprints of their postings. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep Mundane topics like roofing supply companies often don't attract much media hype but notability can be sussed from a broad base of sources. Several third party sources identify metrics which I wouldn't consider "trivial" or "incidental" as per the notability guidline on corporations and could even be considered inherently notable, such as almost $100 in annual sales, opening over 200 stores, recording almost $2 billion in total sales and being a large, publicly traded company. Regardless, the article needs work and it leans far too heavily on press releases and self published primary sources. GraniteSand ( talk) 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:LISTED given that it has a sufficient number of reliable third party sources for a listed company. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 05:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- We have never applied LISTED for NASDAQ. I have in past years tried repeatedly to get it accepted, but the consensus has almost always been against it. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete with a caveat Every ref in the article is a database entry or, more or less, a press release. The closest thing I've found to a WP:CORPDEPTH compatible article is [1], which has a few paragraphs of material that attempt depth. But I was unable to find anything in the article itself or this discussion so far that matched it, and the total there is not sufficient. GraniteSand's sources are warmed-over press releases. That the company is NASDAQ-listed does not in my experience demonstrate the existence of good coverage. Still, with a $1B+ market cap, I would guess that coverage may still exist, yet to be found, perhaps in specialized industry periodicals. The topic may be able to show notability if a sufficiently informed editor has access to appropriate sources and builds an article from them. This is not that article, and today, so far, is not that day. -- j⚛e decker talk 04:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dea db eef10:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Assuming the primary problem is that the article lacks 3rd-party references, is that normally grounds for deletion? I mean, if it can be made better and satisfy the requirements for keeping it, why delete what has already been started? (I realize there are other concerns about WP:N as well, this is just a general clarifying question)) Ultrauber ( talk) 05:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Companies with annual revenue of $2B and major stock market listing are notable. The sourcing in the article is not stellar, but a quick news search reveals page and page of relevant reliable source coverage. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The article is far from perfect, but the revenue of the company and coverage outside of this site is what made me decide that it was notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- delete having tried various searches I can't come up with any better sources than the ones in the articles, which just aren't good enough: they're either first party or don't have enough depth, being routine coverage of announcements, especially financial announcements. But as already noted simply being listed on NASDAQ isn't enough for notability. I don't see any reliable coverage that doesn't follow from it being a largish listed company.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
04:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Really? CORP/LISTED specifically cites analyst reports as examples of coverage that is sufficient to establish notability. A simple news search (which I linked above) returns
this very indepth analyst report with just 2 weeks ago as the third link. (There is also a link to get an even more detailed report with free registration to the site.) If you are classifying that, and many similar quality sources in the same news search, as "routine coverage of announcements" I am baffled. Perhaps you only read the headliens are didn't bother to check the actual depth of coverage? --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The point of notability is that parties choose to cover the firm for it's inherent notability. I.e. they find it interesting. Not that they write about it as it's their job as analysts to routinely write, even at length, about a firm because it's publicly traded. That's my problem with the above source and all the others I found.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That might be your opinion, but notability guidelines disagree. No exclusion of analyst reports is made, and indeed it is specifically cited as material that conveys notability. What you consider boring, routine stuff, people interested in business consider exciting. Business writing normally covers financials (but note most such reports also give background info on what the company does) by people paid to cover financials. That doesn't make it any less reliable or indepth - the actual notability requirements - nor does it make it indiscriminiate (business analsysts/reports do choose what they write about - no one blindly covers every company in existance!). To discount business writing because it is about money is like discounting sports writing because it is about a game or literary writing because it is about a book. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The point of notability is that parties choose to cover the firm for it's inherent notability. I.e. they find it interesting. Not that they write about it as it's their job as analysts to routinely write, even at length, about a firm because it's publicly traded. That's my problem with the above source and all the others I found.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Really? CORP/LISTED specifically cites analyst reports as examples of coverage that is sufficient to establish notability. A simple news search (which I linked above) returns
this very indepth analyst report with just 2 weeks ago as the third link. (There is also a link to get an even more detailed report with free registration to the site.) If you are classifying that, and many similar quality sources in the same news search, as "routine coverage of announcements" I am baffled. Perhaps you only read the headliens are didn't bother to check the actual depth of coverage? --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- You seem confused about "inherent". Things that are "inherently" something carry that attribute without outside input or consideration. In the context of Wikipedia, things which are considered inherently notable generally don't require sourcing to establish a unique or independent notability, only to establish that they exist within the parameters which establish that inherent notability. GraniteSand ( talk) 02:41, 5 December 2014 (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 no consensus. There are relatively strong arguments on both sides of this debate. Those supporting deletion successfully establish the lack of significant third-party coverage, yet those supporting keeping the article note the success of the business, while it does not make the subject inherently notable, contributes to an argument thereof, and some argue that there are sufficient sources for inclusion (e.g., Ktr101). However, no one is arguing that the article should be deleted solely because it is of low quality, thus refuting one argument by a supporter of keeping. Ultimately, this discussion has gone on for over a month, and I am unconvinced that another seven days will facilitate reaching a consensus, so I will close this discussion as no consensus with no prejudice against a renomination if additional information on either side manifests itself. Go Phightins ! 00:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc.
- Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources for significance. Everything here is either from the company website, or a press release, or a mere notice. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies). PS. Regarding the fact that the company is listed at NASDAQ, per WP:LISTED, it's not enough. Please find proper, reliable sources, add them to the article, and WP:ECHO me to review them and reconsider my vote once this happens. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 11:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 11:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Additional references have been added; they continue to be press releases or mere routine mentions; most are simply downright press releases from BusinessWire or reprints of their postings. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep Mundane topics like roofing supply companies often don't attract much media hype but notability can be sussed from a broad base of sources. Several third party sources identify metrics which I wouldn't consider "trivial" or "incidental" as per the notability guidline on corporations and could even be considered inherently notable, such as almost $100 in annual sales, opening over 200 stores, recording almost $2 billion in total sales and being a large, publicly traded company. Regardless, the article needs work and it leans far too heavily on press releases and self published primary sources. GraniteSand ( talk) 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:LISTED given that it has a sufficient number of reliable third party sources for a listed company. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 05:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- We have never applied LISTED for NASDAQ. I have in past years tried repeatedly to get it accepted, but the consensus has almost always been against it. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete with a caveat Every ref in the article is a database entry or, more or less, a press release. The closest thing I've found to a WP:CORPDEPTH compatible article is [1], which has a few paragraphs of material that attempt depth. But I was unable to find anything in the article itself or this discussion so far that matched it, and the total there is not sufficient. GraniteSand's sources are warmed-over press releases. That the company is NASDAQ-listed does not in my experience demonstrate the existence of good coverage. Still, with a $1B+ market cap, I would guess that coverage may still exist, yet to be found, perhaps in specialized industry periodicals. The topic may be able to show notability if a sufficiently informed editor has access to appropriate sources and builds an article from them. This is not that article, and today, so far, is not that day. -- j⚛e decker talk 04:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dea db eef10:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Assuming the primary problem is that the article lacks 3rd-party references, is that normally grounds for deletion? I mean, if it can be made better and satisfy the requirements for keeping it, why delete what has already been started? (I realize there are other concerns about WP:N as well, this is just a general clarifying question)) Ultrauber ( talk) 05:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Companies with annual revenue of $2B and major stock market listing are notable. The sourcing in the article is not stellar, but a quick news search reveals page and page of relevant reliable source coverage. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The article is far from perfect, but the revenue of the company and coverage outside of this site is what made me decide that it was notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- delete having tried various searches I can't come up with any better sources than the ones in the articles, which just aren't good enough: they're either first party or don't have enough depth, being routine coverage of announcements, especially financial announcements. But as already noted simply being listed on NASDAQ isn't enough for notability. I don't see any reliable coverage that doesn't follow from it being a largish listed company.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
04:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Really? CORP/LISTED specifically cites analyst reports as examples of coverage that is sufficient to establish notability. A simple news search (which I linked above) returns
this very indepth analyst report with just 2 weeks ago as the third link. (There is also a link to get an even more detailed report with free registration to the site.) If you are classifying that, and many similar quality sources in the same news search, as "routine coverage of announcements" I am baffled. Perhaps you only read the headliens are didn't bother to check the actual depth of coverage? --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The point of notability is that parties choose to cover the firm for it's inherent notability. I.e. they find it interesting. Not that they write about it as it's their job as analysts to routinely write, even at length, about a firm because it's publicly traded. That's my problem with the above source and all the others I found.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That might be your opinion, but notability guidelines disagree. No exclusion of analyst reports is made, and indeed it is specifically cited as material that conveys notability. What you consider boring, routine stuff, people interested in business consider exciting. Business writing normally covers financials (but note most such reports also give background info on what the company does) by people paid to cover financials. That doesn't make it any less reliable or indepth - the actual notability requirements - nor does it make it indiscriminiate (business analsysts/reports do choose what they write about - no one blindly covers every company in existance!). To discount business writing because it is about money is like discounting sports writing because it is about a game or literary writing because it is about a book. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The point of notability is that parties choose to cover the firm for it's inherent notability. I.e. they find it interesting. Not that they write about it as it's their job as analysts to routinely write, even at length, about a firm because it's publicly traded. That's my problem with the above source and all the others I found.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Really? CORP/LISTED specifically cites analyst reports as examples of coverage that is sufficient to establish notability. A simple news search (which I linked above) returns
this very indepth analyst report with just 2 weeks ago as the third link. (There is also a link to get an even more detailed report with free registration to the site.) If you are classifying that, and many similar quality sources in the same news search, as "routine coverage of announcements" I am baffled. Perhaps you only read the headliens are didn't bother to check the actual depth of coverage? --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- You seem confused about "inherent". Things that are "inherently" something carry that attribute without outside input or consideration. In the context of Wikipedia, things which are considered inherently notable generally don't require sourcing to establish a unique or independent notability, only to establish that they exist within the parameters which establish that inherent notability. GraniteSand ( talk) 02:41, 5 December 2014 (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.