Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 12

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. There's substantial disagreement here over the quality of the sources, and where they fall on the incidental-to-substantial spectrum. There's good arguments on both sides, so going largely with the weight of numbers on this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third Rock Ventures

Third Rock Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Investment firm, no indications of notability, references don't appear to exist that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I made this page, and think the company probably meets
  WP:GNG. That said, there are only a limited number of high-quality sources covering these folks though, so I'm ready to admit that this falls into a notability "grey zone" and I thank the nom for questioning the notability. I've beefed up the references a little bit. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The sources in the article, especially the Fortune, Boston Globe and Nature articles, are sufficient to satisfy
  WP:CORP. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: does not meet
  WP:SPIP
  -like, resulting in promotional article such as:

• "Rather than passively waiting for investment opportunities, Third Rock creates companies itself by attracting the world’s leading experts to sign on"! Etc.

Just a directory listing on a venture fund going about its business. Nothing stands out about it, so "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage in the reliable sources is indcidental , not substantial. The Nature article mentions it in a general article about the overall field; the Globe includes it in a long list of similar firms. None of theis is substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: This is simply wrong. The Nature article is primarily about Third Rock Ventures, not the broader field, and the Globe article contains no such "list of similar firms". You may have a different understanding of what constitutes "incidental" and "substantial" coverage, but your second sentence misrepresents the sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG and Arms & Hearts: - Concur with Hearts. The Fortune and Forbes articles are entirely about Third Rock. I'm not saying those are the best sources, but the coverage definitely isn't incidental. NickCT (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wrong about Nature--but upon reading it again it appears to be PR--even though it appears in a source where would would not expect to find it. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: - What makes it PR? NickCT (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, It is dedicated to presenting the material as the company would wish it presented.

But I gather most people here see this differently; I would withdraw this afd as hopeless, but I cannot, because there's another delete opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: - Well, I wouldn't disagree with you that the coverage in the article seems positive (perhaps in a way that PR might be positive). But I'm not sure it necessarily follows that it's a PR piece. The author and source don't seem to be connected to the company and I'd think we usually consider Nature to be pretty high quality RS.... Anyways, as always, appreciate hearing your thoughts. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the increasing use of promotional interviews as journalism has left be in doubt about the actual reliability of even the best sources. Nature is still reliable for science, but it may not be so for profiles and miscellaneous editorial matter--which are not peer-reviewed and never have been. I've found similar promotional material on people and companies in the NYT, and Washington Post, but in the feature sections, not the actual news. I said many years ago in a RSN discussion that "no source is reliable for every purpose," but I did not realize how bad it was going to get. I still hope that WP at least through its crowd-souring method of review --rather than editorial discretion-- can at least keep itself free from such material, but to do that, we will need to revise our standards to look at the actual material, rather than just where it comes from. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: - Appreciate what you're getting at and absolutely agree that we should avoid sources whose intent is promotion.

Also agree that Nature may not be reliable for editorial matter. That said, it also may be reliable, right? It's possible Nature's "News" section has the same editorial standards the NYT does. Given that we know Nature is reliable in other places, shouldn't we grant them the benefit of the doubt?

I don't want to belabor the point, but just because an article presents a positive image of a place and is mostly interview based, doesn't automatically mean it's unreliable.

We're getting a little hung up on the Nature piece.... There's also the Globe, Fortune and Forbes.... NickCT (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Globe nor the Fortune references are Intellectually Independent. As per ORGIND, 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. Those articles rely on interviews with the founders and there is nothing in any of those articles that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Forbes reference fails since the author, Luke Timmerman, is a "contributor" and not a Forbes journalist and is not subject to editorial controls.

HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

HighKing: - You seem to be looking at articles which have quotes from folks at Third Rock, then you assume that all the facts in those articles are based on quotes from the folks at Third Rock, and thus the articles aren't "unaffiliated from the subject". I'm a little confused how you're making this logical leap. Just because a news piece quotes someone, doesn't mean that the entire piece is somehow tainted. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok.... So looking at the following Fortune excerpt;

When Foundation finally launched in 2010, Third Rock backed it with $25 million. Google Ventures and Kleiner Perkins later kicked in too. The total, $40 million, far exceeded the typical $5 million to $8 million Series A biotech round.

Your feeling is the source did nothing to independently investigate/analyze it? They just took that factoid for straight from the mouths of the Third Rock folks? What's your basis for saying that? Do you think that that's how journalism works in general? NickCT (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

HighKing⁺⁺ 17:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok. So is it fair to say when you said "I cannot identify or point to any original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc" you meant, "can only identify very little"? Not trying to be a stickler here, and again, I do appreciate some of your points about the "quality" of business journalism, but find consensus is not helped by exaggeration. NickCT (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you'd miss the implied context nor did I think it needed to be explained that I couldn't identify any opinion/analysis/etc germane to the company for the purposes of helping establish the notability of the company. Hope that makes it clearer.

HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok. Fair enough. So how about;

Third Rock won’t disclose its returns. But according to the website of one of its investors, Calpers, its 2007 fund has generated an internal rate of return of 25.7%. That puts it well into the top performance quartile, according to alternative-investment tracker Preqin.

That looks like the source did independent verification. Looks like the factoid speaks to the notability of the company. NickCT (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no point in trying for precision. Any source at all can be objected to, and that's one of the weakness of our use of GNG as the sole or principal criterion. For most sources, I could argue in either direction. Frankly, I think almost everyone makes consciously or unconsciously a global judgement of notability , based on some combination of what the think the encyclopedia should cover and what they think of the particular subject of the article, and then argues to come to whatever conclusion they think should be best. To take an example other than this, I think we should be very expansive for political parties and religious sects, and I argue accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm ... I just look at the sources. That said, I have on occasion come across an organization that may be very specialist, with mentions in specialist publications that when added up and taken together, leave me inclined to !vote Keep even though an argument exists to disqualify each individual source. Doesn't happen often I'll admit.

HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

DGG is right. Everyone does make some personal judgement about notability. The only question is whether you're able to admit this to yourself.

I'm pretty happy to admit that my judgement on this could easily be biased by the fact that I'm involved in the biotech sector. Obviously a biotech VC firm is going to seem more notable to me than it might to other people.

That said, we should just be focusing on the sources. I'm a little surprised, b/c at this point the article has 6+ mainstream, high quality RS that provide direct coverage. You've got to grant that there have been a lot of AfD discussions where articles survived with a lot less.

I could probably find another dozen sources that provide mentions (e.g. of the kind that say "Third Rockventures funded Company X"), but somehow I don't think that's going help with some of the intransigence here. NickCT (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, because those types of references would fail

HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh! The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defence. Convincing.

Listen, as DGG said, if you're going to be really critical, I'll grant you that you could probably discount all these references. That said, the article now has considerably more references (from what are usually considered high-quality sources) than most articles which have survived AfD. You're holding this subject to a different bar. And yes, I get your point about the quality of business journalism and churnalism, so maybe a higher bar is appropriate. But not that high.... NickCT (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not holding it to a different bar. Check my !voting on other AfDs and you'll see I'm applying the same bar everywhere, which are the standards of notability written in the NCORP guidelines. All it takes is for two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and I'll happily change my !vote. Yourself and DGG are essentially admitting that you're not holding these references to the standards written in NCORP and are !voting to Keep regardless. Fair enough, that's your perogative, but DGG has argued in the past that he doesn't agree with (the application of?) some of the guidelines and you've admitted that applying the guidelines could probably result in the same analysis as mine. Happily, a closer will look at the application of guidelines and the arguments put forward, etc, but from my experience, in practice, the closer will apply whatever the consensus is regardless. Not quite a counting of !votes but close enough as dammit. This is likely to close as a "No Consensus" unless others join in and I'll accept whatever the result is. We're all simply trying to make the encyclopedia better.

HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think I'm "not holding these references to the standards written in NCORP". I think I simply have a different interpretation of the standards written in NCORP. You've got to admit that if we apply "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" overly strictly, we could probably discount virtually any source... You've also got to admit that we're examining references which would generally be considered acceptable outside the realm of NCORP.

Anyways, as indicated by my initial "weak" vote, I realize there's reasonable scope for disagreement here... NickCT (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. If we apply "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" *correctly* and in the spirit of how to apply the guidelines, then we end up discounting most sources. Not because they're not reliable, but because 99% of business journalism is spam and crap, promotion and churnalism. I'm laughing because as we're having this debate, Ceyockey below added a fantastic book reference which, in my opinion, is intellectually independent and meets the criteria. So that's one good reference. One more and I'll change my !vote.

HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, it is intellectually independent and discusses their business model is some depth. Ticks the box for me. A "simple listing" is when someone produces a "top 10" list or produces a "directory of VC companies".

HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok. Fair enough. It's a little more than a simple listing. But it's also only single paragraph..... NickCT (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep changed to Keep on the basis of the present version. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: meh, it's still a "delete" for me. The article is much reduced in length, but still features the claim that I complained about in my iVote:

Rather than passively waiting for investment opportunities, Third Rock claims to take a more active role in creating companies by bringing together experts in a field.[6]

Who cares what the company claims about itself? It's now a routine, directory listing; no value to the project. I don't see

WP:CORPDEPTH being met here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• @K.e.coffman: - With all due respect, it sounds like you're taking issue with a single sentence. Your criticism of that sentence may be fair, but it's hardly a rationale for deleting the entire article. NickCT (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sufficiently notable, I believe—There is material beyond that which has been added from news sources. Case in point, I've added a 'business model' section which much of the content is sourced from a 2015 book edited by Satish Nambisan. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, good work. The book reference is also good and meets the criteria for establishing notability. The guidelines state that we need a minimum two good references.
    HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Well thought out arguments in this discussion for keep-- I agree that the bar needs to be high... "but not too high". Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soulman1125: - Kudos on reading that wall-of-text. Impressive. NickCT (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NickCT: I live for the drama-- what can I say?! Ha. Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 21:51, 20 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.

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

Tee-Comm Electronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · 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

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]

• Delete - Can't think of any reasonable policy based argument to keep this. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources
  .
  1. Urlocker, Michael (1995-03-15). "Satellite success eludes Tee-Comm". Financial Post.

     The article notes:

     Tee-Comm's track record for failing to meet optimistic financial projections seems to have scared several analysts away from the company.

     ...

     Current subscriber levels are a fair accomplishment, but far lower than the 130,000 subscribers the company had predicted, says a Bay Street analyst.

     But with Tee-Comm trading at ranges of between 95 and 120 times estimated 1994 earnings, clearly a lot of investors are behaving as if the company's success has already been achieved.

     Earnings forecasts for 1995 range between no-growth at 8 cents, which Grossner predicts, and a sharp rise to 23 cents a share, forecast by Alvin Mirman of Gruntal & Co. Inc., a small Wall Street brokerage.

     ...

     Of course, predicting the future is a tough game. But one should always keep an eye on current performance. Says one Bay Street analyst: "Sooner or later somebody is going to say, 'At $9, they have to earn 50 cents a share'."

  2. Anderson, Mark (1994-09-02). "CRTC gives Tee-Comm shares a beam of hope". Financial Post.

     The article notes:

     Executives at Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. have been grinning like Cheshire cats since federal regulators ruled Tuesday to exempt direct-to-home (DTH) satelite television from detailed regulation - provided it is delivered via Canadian satelites.

     ...

     The ruling effectively shuts U.S. DTH leader Hughes DirecTv Inc. out of the Canadian market: Hughes uses U.S. "deathstar" satellites to deliver its 150 channels of pay-per-view movie and sports programming.

     ...

     Tee-Comm's stock (TEN/TSE) got a boost from the CRTC's ruling. Shares that closed at $2.85 Monday, the day before the ruling, closed yesteday at $3.45.

     ...

     Milton Ont.-based Tee-Comm is one of North America's largest manufacturers and distributors of home-satellite systems, the "big dish" systems popular in rural neighborhoods where cable television service isn't offered.

     Tee-Comm has 60% of the Canadian satellite-TV market and 25% of the big U.S. market.

  3. Dalglish, Brenda (1995-12-26). "Retail buyers show faith in Tee-Comm's technology". Financial Post.

     The article notes:

     Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. has had a very good year on the stock market, but a more disappointing one in the laboratory. The stock price of the Milton, Ont., electronics equipment manufacturer more than tripled during the year as investors rushed to get in on the direct-to-home satellite television service that Tee-Comm is helping to develop. But Tee-Comm missed several promised launch dates in the fall, as it worked to resolve problems with the new technology.

     Tee-Comm, which has been manufacturing satellite antennas and receiving dishes since 1983, is developing the receiving dish and set-top receiver box and some of the other associated technology necessary to create a DTH network.

     The article also interviews two analysts:

     Analysts say buyers are almost entirely retail investors rather than institutions, largely because of the speculative nature of the technology involved. They say enthusiasm for the stock got out of control and the shares were due for a correction even before the company said last week its new launch date is expected toward the end of the first quarter of 1996.

     "I expect the stock to sell off because they're losing credibility each time they miss a launch date," said one analyst who commented on the condition he was not identified.

     "The only way the current price can be justified is if you think they're going to do well in the United States," said another analyst. "I don't think they're going to pull it off. They still have to prove that their boxes work."

     However, both analysts agreed the fact that Tee-Comm has missed some short-term deadlines is not a fundamental disaster as long as its technology pans out.

  4. Ingram, Matthew (1995-09-26). "Tee-Comm Electronics flying high Interest in Ontario-based satellite-TV company growing in the United States". The Globe and Mail.

     The article notes:

     Over the past few months, Tee-Comm Electronics Inc.'s stock has been flying as high as the satellites it plans to use for its direct-to-home television service - as visions of the "cable of the future" dance in investors' heads.

     Interest has been growing south of the border in particular, where players on the Nasdaq Stock Market are more accustomed to paying high multiples for relatively unproven technology stocks.

     ...

     Larry Woods - a professional investor who runs the Niagara Hedge Fund based in Stoney Creek, Ont. - says he is a long-time fan of Tee-Comm, although he doesn't currently hold any of the stock.

     "It's a phenomenal Canadian success story," he says. "It's become one of the leading companies in North America when it comes to this technology. Now they have American broadcast capability, and they're one of the only companies I know with an MPEG-2 set-top box. They've got it all."

  5. Dummett, Ben (1997-05-23). "Tee-Comm's Bank Places Firm In Receivership; Board Resigns". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

     The article notes:

     Tee-Comm Electronics Inc., hurt by price wars in the U.S. satellite-television industry, said its bank put it into receivership and demanded repayment of the firm's credit line.

     Tee-Comm, an operator of satellite television services, also said its board resigned, including the company's founder, Al Bahnman. Mr. Bahnman remains president and chief executive officer.

     ...

     Tee-Comm's rivals were able to subsidize their products, because they had access to "deep pockets" that Tee-Comm lacked, said Philip Benson, industry analyst at MMI Group Inc. in Toronto. DirecTV is owned by Hughes Electronics Corp., a division of General Motors Corp. PrimeStar is owned by a group of cable operators including Tele-Communications Inc. and Time Warner Inc.

     ...

     Tee-Comm has been looking for a strategic partner for the past couple of years without success because it entered the U.S. market behind its rivals, Mr. Benson said.

  6. Brehl, Robert (1997-05-22). "Satellite TV company hits a black hole Bank reviewing Tee-Comm's credit facility". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

     The article notes:

     Tee-Comm shares, which had a 52-week high of $16.10, have been hammered lately.

     They closed yesterday at 68 cents on the Toronto Stock Exchange, down 21 cents.

     Can Tee-Comm be saved?

     "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," said Philip Benson, an industry analyst with MMI Group Inc.

  7. Brehl, Robert (1996-08-16). "Tee-Comm ready to offer satellite TV". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

     The article notes:

     Yesterday, tiny Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. made it clear it has had it with phone giant BCE Inc. and other partners in grounded satellite company ExpressVu Inc.

     ExpressVu and BCE are not exactly enamored with Tee-Comm, either.

     Now Tee-Comm is going it alone - promising to be the "first" to launch a Canadian direct-to-home satellite service called AlphaStar Canada.

  8. "Tee-Comm Unit in Town of Tonawanda Files for Bankruptcy". The Buffalo News. 1997-06-03. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

     The article notes:

     A second unit of satellite television company Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. has filed for bankruptcy court protection from its creditors.

     Tee-Comm Distribution Inc., 250 Cooper Ave., Town of Tonawanda, listed assets of $10 million and liabilities of approximately $105 million, according to papers filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on Friday

     A week ago, another unit of Tee-Comm Electronics, AlphaStar Television Network Inc. of Stamford, Conn., filed for Chapter 11 protection.

     ...

     Tee-Comm Electronics, based in Montreal, has 50,000 subscribers in the United States and 6,000 in Canada.

  9. Brehl, Robert (1996-06-19). "TV-dish imports spark tussle Tee-Comm denies dealers' charges". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  10. Rubin, Sandra (1994-06-02). "Tee-Comm takes on giants with TV dish". The Hamilton Spectator. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Milton-based Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. has a message for a newly formed consortium of Canadian communications giants who have a plan to beam scores of TV channels to tiny home satellite dishes.

      Tee-Comm wants in -- but not at any cost, the company's management said yesterday.

      ...

      Tee-Comm, Canada's largest manufacturer of home satellite systems, is negotiating with the consortium.

  11. Brehl, Robert (1996-05-31). "Tee-Comm slaps a lid on ExpressVu spending". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. will not let the problem-plagued ExpressVu Inc. drag the company down, Tee-Comm's chairman says.

      Milton-based Tee-Comm was one of the original investors in the direct-to-home satellite company that just can't seem to get to market.

      Tee-Comm has passed on the last two cash calls at ExpressVu and equity has slipped from 33 per cent to 22 per cent. Tee-Comm will spend no more on ExpressVu but will focus on the U.S. satellite service called AlphaStar, of which Tee-Comm owns 97 per cent, chairman Al Bahnman told the annual meeting.

  12. Brehl, Robert (1997-05-09). "Tee-Comm takes beating One-time darling of Bay Street drops to 85 cents". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Canada's only operational direct-to-home satellite TV company was hammered on the stock market yesterday, losing almost 60 per cent of its value.

      Once the darling of Bay Street, Tee-Comm Electronics Inc. fell to 85 cents yesterday, down $1.20 on extremely heavy trading of 3.4 million shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

      Tee-Comm, which owns AlphaStar Canada, had a 52-week high of $16.10.

      The company has long been looking for a white knight and yesterday it issued a news release that triggered a wave of selling.

  13. Brehl, Robert (1997-02-15). "Local entrant holds own in TV dish race Tee-Comm brings product to U.S. market". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      Tee-Comm has had problems, management and shareholders acknowledge. Its launch of AlphaStar was delayed over and over for about a year until it finally got going in the fall.

      Many observers, including the president of rival ExpressVu and some financial analysts, wonder if AlphaStar has the money to keep going much longer. Tee-Comm has reportedly been close many times to finding partners with deep pockets, but still no official announcement.

      AlphaStar's dish is not nearly as nifty as the popular DirecTV and EchoStar dishes from the United States. It is a lot smaller than those old eight-foot dishes out in the country or obtrusively atop urban sports bars.

  14. Masters, Ian G. (1998-01-01). "Plenty of surprises in store for '98". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      The sourest note in all this is that one of the pioneering companies in consumer satellite distribution was not able to survive. AlphaStar had the distinction of being the first Canadian service in operation, but its parent company - Tee-Comm Electronics - went broke just as the other services were launching. Tee-Comm had been a member of the original ExpressVu consortium, but had dropped out as its partners dithered, and set up its own service.

      It didn't have the financial depth of the giant phone and cable companies behind the other services, however, and it foundered.

  15. Futch, Michael (1997-08-31). "More Americans Turn to Dishes". The Fayetteville Observer. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.

      The article notes:

      At this time, AlphaStar -- with about 58,000 subscribers -- is not a serious option. Its parent company is Tee-Comm Electronics. The Canadian company has its troubles, having filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy several months ago. It is proceeding through bankruptcy and the sale of its assets.

      Earlier this month, AlphaStar subscribers stopped receiving the service signal.

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

  Cunard (talk) 22:45, 16 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
  HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Here are some more sources:
  1. Acheson, Keith; Maule, Christopher John (2001). Much Ado about Culture: North American Trade Disputes. Ann Arbor:
     ISBN 978-0-472-08789-1
     . Retrieved 2018-09-18.

     The book notes:

     1995: DirecTV protests to FCC Tee-Comm's application to provide a DTH service, AlphaStar, in the United States.

     ...

     1996: Tee-Comm leaves ExpressVu Inc. and licenses AlphaStar in Canada.

     ...

     1997: AlphaStar, Star Choice, ExpressVu initiate licensed service.

     ...

     1997: AlphaStar goes out of business.

     ...

     Like TRIO, Newsworld, and MuchMusic, Tee-Comm went continental and launched its AlphaStar service in the United States on July 1, 1996. Tee-Comm then applied for and received a license to launch its service in Canada.²¹ The CRTC allowed AlphaStar to deliver its Canadian services using American satellites until it could arrange to obtain space on Canadian satellites. By the end of May 1997, AlphaStar was out of business and Tee-Comm was in receivership. At the time of its bankruptcy, there were an estimated 7,000 subscribers in Canada and 60,000 in the United States.²²
     
     Footnotes
     
     21. CRTC Decision 97–87, Ottawa, February 27, 1997.

     22. Globe and Mail, August 7, 1997, B1, B6.

     The article notes:

     The CRTC's treatment of satellite carriage in the DTH dispute generated a response in the American regulatory arena. Tee-Comm had contracted with AT&T for satellite services to deliver its AlphaStar service in the United States. DirecTV requested the American broadcasting regulator, the FCC, to deny AlphaStar the right to provide the DTH service. The request was based on two arguments. One was that delivering a DTH signal using a Canadian uplink was illegal. The second was couched in terms of "fundamental fairness." DirecTV maintained that allowing AlphaStar to operate in the United States if DirecTV could not provide a service in Canada was unfair. Tee-Comm and AT&T responded to both allegations. They claimed that all uplinking services could and would, if necessary, originate in the United States.³² With regard to the fairness issue, they told the FCC that "procedures in Canada are changing and may permit the market entry that DirecTV is seeking."³³ When the Canadian directives to the CRTC established rules for licensing consistent with Power DirecTV's business plan, DirecTV withdrew its petition and the FCC dismissed it without prejudice.

     ...
     
     Footnotes
     
     31. CRTC Decisions 93–235, and 93–236, Ottawa, June 25, 1993.

     32. See "DirecTV attempts to block AlphaStar U.S. DTH bid at FCC," Satellite News. May 22, 1995.

  2. ISBN 978-0-471-24530-8
     . Retrieved 2018-09-18.

     The book discusses "demand lending" and gives Tee-Comm as an example. The book notes:

     Tee-Comm Electronics, Inc., a satellite television company in Milton, Ontario, fell into receivership when the Bank of Montreal called for immediate payment of a loan worth more than $34 million. After reaching a high on the Toronto Stock Exchange of $18.75, shares of Tee-Comm fell to $0.68 in May 1997 (Dalglish 1997).
     
     [Reference]
     
     Daglish, Brenda. 1997. Tee-Comm slides into receivership. Financial Post (Toronto), 23 May, 1.

  3. Waal, Peter (1997). "Tee-Comm's fall to earth is met with controversy and threats". Canadian Business. Retrieved 2018-09-18.

     The article notes:

     File this under the heading "Investment Protection." On May 23, 1997, at about 8 p.m., two men in suits showed up unannounced at Tee-Comm Electronics Inc.'s offices in Milton, Ont. Tee- Comm, a Canadian direct-to- home (DTH) digital satellite-TV company, had recently gone into receivership.

     Claiming to represent "a significant Winnipeg investor," the men told Tee-Comm president and CEO Al Bahnman that the investor was extremely upset about having lost his money and that he wanted it back. Believing the two men were simply naïve, Bahman laughed off their request and …

     …

     In May, Bank of Montreal forced the former Bay Street darling—which one had a market capitalization of $500 million and attracted high-profile board members, including, briefly, Perrin Beatty—into receivership and its US subsidiary, AlphaStar Television Network Inc. into Chapter 11 (the US bankruptcy protection clause). That left many investors, especially Nesbitt Burns Inc., which had a sizable holding in Tee-Comm stock out of luck.

     ...

     Clive Hobson, Tee-Comm's former investor relations manager, says the company also received threatening calls from irate DTH dealers and customers and that Tee-Comm's Miami office was threatened a couple of times by investors from Puerto Rico.

  Cunard (talk) 05:21, 18 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]

• Withdrawing nom. This time you found excellent sources indeed. #2 by itself would be sufficient. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 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 @
  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.

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 merge to Eurodance. As has been suggested in the discussion, the title is quite useless as a search term, so my suggestion would be that the page be tagged for non-controversial deletion per this AfD once the merge has been performed. Vanamonde (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up (music)

Hands up (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Music genre article is a recent creation of editor now blocked re

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no notable Ghits. Doesn't seem to pass
  garage band situation. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and redirect to Eurodance, at best a pretty obscure sub-genre of Eurodance, but you'll struggle to find reliable sources for it. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails
  WP:V. Here is the link to the previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands up (music genre), and my reasoning for my deletion vote still stands. I wouldn't even redirect it to Eurodance, as there aren't any reliable sources to link it to that. Richard3120 (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Eurodance. Though the current sourcing is quite poor, the term is at least verifiable ([39] [40] [41]) and has at least four explanations (that are mostly overlapping) seen here: [42] [43] [44] [45]. All these results appeared in a Google News search with such terms as "hands up is" and "hands up genre". Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is whether Eurodance is the correct merger target – it's only mentioned in two of the seven sources you cite, and at least one of those sources is non-RS. One of the other sources calls it a derivative of hardstyle (and so does this German source [46]), and yet another of the above sources says it's a slowed-down version of happy hardcore. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above comments but maybe don't Redirect. A pretty useless search term but the content appears to be verifiable.
  69 09:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge, the refs offered above support the claim it is a variation of eurodance unambiguously. Szzuk (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, consider this style is most popular in Germany (so experts will likely be German and don't frequent English wiki), having a merged version under eurodance will allow more editors to stumble upon/work on the article. HKO2006 (talk) 13:58, 20 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.

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 delete. Tone 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Nguyen (basketball)

Henry Nguyen (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NHOOPS either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I added a few sources to the article to at least source the statements there. It is possible there are some sources in the Vietnamese speaking media, a super short search turned these up [47] [48]. I might take a better look at it tonight. — Dammit_steve (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't necessarily apply to you, but my usual caveat is that unless we are fluent in the foreign language or familiar with the publisher's country, many on English Wikipedia too readily assume that any hit on Google is a reliable source, whereas we'd be more able to filter promotional, non-reliable, or non-independent sources written in English from countries which we are more familiar. For sports, it's all too common that non-notable bios are created because a writer mistakenly believes that any pro player in the world is inherently notable and deserves an article.—Bagumba (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offence taken on my part. In AFD discussions like these where I'm unfamiliar with the league and the country media I usually stay neutral and just post possible reliable sources to help others decide. Dammit_steve (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google translate makes these sources pretty easy to assess. To me they seem fair - I would certainly want significantly more to pass GNG, but more than a passing mention. Sort of moves the bar in the right direction but doesn't demonstrate enough. Just as importantly, both sources are from the same publisher, so we only have one not terribly impressive source here.Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely doesn't meet the notability criteria for basketball players. As best I can tell,
  WP:GNG is not met, either. Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep NHOOPS is not met, but that's not as thorough a guideline as some of the other NSPORTS guidelines. I think there's enough coverage in Vietnamese to meet GNG.
  π, ν) 20:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The sources in Vietanemse aren't impressive as stated by Rlendog and they don't show that he passes NSPorts or WP:GNG. He fails WP:NHOOPs as you state too. Plus nearly all basketball players from that league don't have articles. JC7V-constructive zone 20:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As discussed, doesn’t seem to meet
  WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 12:11, 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.

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 delete. Tone 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Boxing Association (1984)

National Boxing Association (1984) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another non-notable fringe boxing organisation in a sea of many who try to seek legitimacy. A recent primary contributor has, interestingly, tried to remove all mentions of the original NBA, which—as most boxing aficionados should know—became the WBA. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage showing either
  WP:NCORP is satisfied. Minor boxing organization apparently hoping to capitalize on using the former name of the WBA. Notability isn't inherited from having a few well-known fighters as its champions--Boxrec lists it as a minor organization and its titles don't even appear in the individuals' list of fights. Papaursa (talk) 17:48, 16 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.

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.

Thaworn Farm F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copying my nomination comment over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roi Et 2018 F.C.:

A fifth-tier amateur football club, references in the article are to seemingly

WP:FOOTYN#Club notability

.

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC); 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Per Paul_012; I'm willing to trust that the news report says what he says it says, and that other sourcing exists, even if it isn't online. Once notable is always notable, even if they don't see any coverage from the internet age. The only problem is that we don't really have sources that we can use to cite an article, so even if notable, its difficult to justify a standalone article that can't be sourced. Delete Per nom. Can't find anything better in searches. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject's notability established in the 1980s. The Facebook link listed in the article is a recording of a Channel 3 programme with 4 minutes covering the club, describing them as one of the more famous teams of the era. Since their peak was over thirty years ago, most of the coverage they received would be in offline sources, which very likely exist. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This team doesn't pass. I think all amateur football club in the word don't pass. This team famous thai football team before modern computer born. If SshibumXZ can't listen Thai language, You may not chaotic.Aquaelfin (talk) 9:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Per Paul 012. The TV programme in the reference show lots of pictures of team on old magazines covers, photos from newspaper. So offline coverage was indeed plenty in that era. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above, likely notable. GiantSnowman 14:26, 13 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.

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 delete. Tone 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roi Et 2018 F.C.

Roi Et 2018 F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fifth-tier amateur football club, references in the article are to seemingly

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 21:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 21:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 21:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Can't find anything better in searches. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as an amature club founded only earlier this year, it is likely to be a while before any reliable coverage emerges. As the nominator stated article failed Wikipedia's guidelines at the moment. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If we are going to delete this article, we might as well also Afd
  Matt294069 00:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That makes sense. But if you do initiate the AfDs, please make them separate nominations, as coverage of each of these clubs varies. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Public source of 2018 Thailand Amateur League North Eastern Region all teams. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/th/features/iisaanbaanehaa-18-thiimemecchrliikochniisaantnbn?page=0%2C3 Aquaelfin (talk) 10:42, 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.