Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cominar: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:32, 29 August 2018

Cominar

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

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

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

Withdrawn / Keep per sources below and note about analysts' reports being acceptable per NORG.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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy subsection —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

-

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

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

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

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

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

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Analyst reports

This 4 July 2018 article^WebCite from The Globe and Mail notes:
Cominar Real Estate Investment Trust (CUF.UN-T) has achieved a “significant” transformation, according to CIBC World Markets analyst Sumayya Hussain, who expects “more to come.”
However, warning “the future is not quite so certain,” she initiated coverage of Quebec City-based REIT with a “neutral” rating.
“Since 2017, Cominarhas made major strategic strides in addressing several challenges facing its business,” said Ms. Hussain. “After years of operational challenges (that extended beyond soft market fundamentals), the REIT has sold over a billion dollars in assets in markets where it lacked a competitive edge and local platforms, to revert to being a Quebec-focused REIT across all commercial asset classes. Change in leadership, a refresh of the board, and (in-progress) elimination of conflicts of interest are further positive steps that, in our view, address many unitholders’ concern.“
“On the other hand, management andthe newly constituted board are continuing to evaluate the long-term strategic direction of the REIT. More recently the REIT has been active on dispositions, deleveraging, unit buybacks, and capital spending; however, until the new board concludes its review, it will be challenging to fully establish what the new Cominar will look like. We await clarity on the new target leverage, future dispositions, and details around capital allocation. Given historically elevated leverage levels however, we expect debt reduction will be the key focus for the REIT in the interim. The REIT allocated net proceeds from the recent $1.14-billion asset sale to debt reduction, and we expect future sale proceeds could meet the same fate, which we view as a prudent move.”
Ms. Hussain set a $14 target for Cominar units, which is 31 cents less than the consensus on the Street.
This 12 March 2018 article^WebCite from The Globe and Mail notes:
Cominar Real Estate Investment Trust's (CUF.UN-T) recent strategic initiatives and improved corporate governance should be viewed positively by investors, said Industrial Alliance Securities analyst Brad Sturges.
"Cominar is anticipated to provide further clarity about its near-term strategic initiatives in the coming months, including details regarding the second phase of non-core asset sales. We believe further strategic announcements could act as a positive catalyst for the REIT's units in the next 12 months," said Mr. Sturges.
He raised his rating for the Quebec City-based REIT to "buy" from "hold," citing the following factors:
[four factors provided]
Mr. Sturges said Cominar went "back to its roots" with the $1.14-billion sale of non-core assets in Ontario and Atlantic and Eastern Canada to Slate Acquisitions Inc., announced in early January. Its focus now rests the Quebec commercial real estate market in which the analyst said it has created a "strong" operating track record and a competitive position,
"The REIT's senior management team and board of trustees have extensive real estate asset and property management experience in the province," he said. "Cominar's commercial property footprint has positioned the REIT as the largest landlord in the province, providing it with local property market knowledge and leasing relationships across all commercial property segments in Quebec. The REIT's presence in Quebec creates significant economies of scale, which helps minimize operating and overhead costs.
"With over 50 per cent of its core commercial asset portfolio in Montreal, Cominar expects to participated in the growth of Canada's second largest city as major infrastructure projects, such as the Reseau Express Metropolitain (REM), drive NOI [net operating income] growth and provide value-add intensification opportunities in the REIT's existing Montreal portfolio over time. Also, the REIT expects its Quebec City commercial property portfolio could provide both cash flow stability and growth opportunities, with a high office and industrial portfolio occupancy rate at 95.5 per cent. Like Montreal, Quebec City stands to further prosper as it refines its urban development strategy and mass transit orientation."
This 6 December 2010 article^WebCite from Financial Post notes:
The article notes:
Quebec City-based Cominar Real Estate Investment Trust has received a top rating from Scotia Capital analyst Pammi Bir who likes the REIT’s asset mix.
“Weighting in more cyclical assets bodes well for multiple expansion. With increasing signs of economic momentum building (particularly in the U.S.), we believe Cominar is well positioned to benefit given its significant exposure to industrial assets,” noted Mr. Bir, pointing to the fact 35% of the REIT’s net operating income comes from industrial space.
...
“Armed with its regional market dominance, ability to acquire at attractive spreads to its capital cost, leverage to an economic recovery, and led by economically aligned management, we see current levels as an attractive entry point,” said Mr. Bir.
This 10 November 2017 article^WebCite from Financial Post notes:
Analyst Heather Kirk of BMO Capital Markets said focusing on the Quebec market will reduce risk and provide the company more financial flexibility to pursue acquisitions and development projects in the province.
“The strategy brings Cominar back to its roots and what it was known for when it first went public,” she wrote in a report.
This 4 October 2017 article^WebCite from Financial Post notes:
Michael Markidis of Desjardins Capital Markets said the changes should not have an impact on the strategic direction of the REIT. However, he said separating the roles of chairman and CEO, along with the removal of a Dallaire family member from the board, may be perceived as an improvement.
Cominar is Canada’s third-largest diversified real estate investment trust, with 523 office, retail, industrial and mixed-use properties across Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic Provinces and Western Canada.
This 5 January 2018 article^WebCite from Financial Post notes:
As expected there are a lot of gems in the recently published 377-page report by RBC Capital Markets on the sector outlook for REITs, a group with a market capitalization of about $75 billion.
...
Based on what’s happened already, we are more than 20 per cent of the way to that 2018 estimate, in part because some of the “grander plans” announced by three REITs have already been achieved.

Downgrade

Cominar REIT, which had a year to forget with a credit rating downgrade (the first for the sector) and a cut in distributions, has already made good on its plan, announced last August, to divest $1.2 billion of non-core assets, via the recent sale to Slate Acquisitions. It plans to sell another $1 billion – $1.5 billion of properties.

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

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Details
8/13/2018	Industrial Alliance Securities	Lower Price Target		C$14.50 ➝ C$14.25	Paywall link
7/4/2018	CIBC	Reiterated Rating	Neutral	C$14.00	Paywall link
6/21/2018	BMO Capital Markets	Reiterated Rating	Outperform	C$14.00	Paywall link
5/11/2018	Scotiabank	Lower Price Target	Sector Perform	C$14.25 ➝ C$14.00	Paywall link
5/9/2018	Desjardins	Lower Price Target		C$14.25 ➝ C$14.00	Paywall link
5/9/2018	Royal Bank of Canada	Lower Price Target	Sector Perform	C$14.50 ➝ C$13.50	Paywall link
3/9/2018	TD Securities	Lower Price Target	Hold	C$15.00 ➝ C$14.00	Paywall link
3/9/2018	National Bank Financial	Boost Price Target	Outperform	C$15.75 ➝ C$16.50	Paywall link
11/12/2017	Canaccord Genuity	Reiterated Rating	Hold	C$14.25	Paywall link
9/27/2017	Laurentian Bank of Canada	Reiterated Rating	Buy	C$14.50	Paywall link
8/22/2017	Eight Capital	Upgrade	Neutral ➝ Buy		Paywall link

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

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

The analyst reports from IA Financial Group's Industrial Alliance Securities, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, BMO Capital Markets, Scotiabank, Desjardins Group, Royal Bank of Canada, TD Securities, National Bank of Canada's National Bank Financial, Canaccord Genuity, Laurentian Bank of Canada, and Eight Capital are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.
Cunard (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reverted hatting.
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments says collapsing is permitted for off-topic posts. My post is not off-topic. It directly addresses the notability concerns mentioned in the deletion nomination.
The guideline says, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You do not have my permission to collapse my "keep" rationale and insert your personal opinion ("Possible, but disputed, sourcing") in between. Your collapsing of Eastmain (talk · contribs)'s quote and inserting your comment in between is also unacceptable as you did not receive Eastmain's permission either.
From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." I object to your editing my comments. You should stop.
Cunard (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Agreed. WP:NCORP explicitly says analyst reports establish notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
Cunard (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *'''Delete''' - owning property does not mean "notable." 2 refs only, including the REIT website,  means "not notable". [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
-<ul><li>'''Keep''' per the significant coverage in multiple independent [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]].<br><br>From [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations]] (my bolding): <blockquote>There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the [[NYSE]] and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, '''sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies''', so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and '''analyst reports'''. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.</blockquote> <br><br><u>'''Analyst reports'''</u><br><br>
+<ul><li>'''Keep''' per the significant coverage in multiple independent [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]].<br><br>
+{{hat|Sourcing. [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:dark blue">'''—SerialNumber54129'''</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">''' paranoia /'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|'''cheap sh*t room''']]</sup> 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)}}
+From [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations]] (my bolding): <blockquote>There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the [[NYSE]] and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, '''sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies''', so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and '''analyst reports'''. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.</blockquote> <br><br><u>'''Analyst reports'''</u><br><br>
 <ol>
 <li>[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/inside-the-market/article-wednesdays-analyst-upgrades-and-downgrades-15/ This 4 July 2018 article]<sup>[https://www.webcitation.org/71x29IwuB WebCite]</sup> from ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'' notes: <blockquote>Cominar Real Estate Investment Trust (CUF.UN-T) has achieved a “significant” transformation, according to '''CIBC World Markets analyst Sumayya Hussain''', who expects “more to come.”<p>However, warning “the future is not quite so certain,” she initiated coverage of Quebec City-based REIT with a “neutral” rating.<p>“Since 2017, Cominarhas made major strategic strides in addressing several challenges facing its business,” said Ms. Hussain. “After years of operational challenges (that extended beyond soft market fundamentals), the REIT has sold over a billion dollars in assets in markets where it lacked a competitive edge and local platforms, to revert to being a Quebec-focused REIT across all commercial asset classes. Change in leadership, a refresh of the board, and (in-progress) elimination of conflicts of interest are further positive steps that, in our view, address many unitholders’ concern.“<p>“On the other hand, management andthe newly constituted board are continuing to evaluate the long-term strategic direction of the REIT. More recently the REIT has been active on dispositions, deleveraging, unit buybacks, and capital spending; however, until the new board concludes its review, it will be challenging to fully establish what the new Cominar will look like. We await clarity on the new target leverage, future dispositions, and details around capital allocation. Given historically elevated leverage levels however, we expect debt reduction will be the key focus for the REIT in the interim. The REIT allocated net proceeds from the recent $1.14-billion asset sale to debt reduction, and we expect future sale proceeds could meet the same fate, which we view as a prudent move.”<p>Ms. Hussain set a $14 target for Cominar units, which is 31 cents less than the consensus on the Street.</blockquote></li>
@@ Line 72: / Line 74: @@
 ::*Per [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments]], reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCominar&diff=856603471&oldid=856598305 hatting] of my comment which broke the formatting of the page and which I object to. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 21:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 :::*Reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCominar&diff=856771437&oldid=856674602 hatting].<p>[[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments]] says collapsing is permitted for off-topic posts. My post is not off-topic. It directly addresses the notability concerns mentioned in the deletion nomination.<p>The guideline says, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you ''should not'' edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You do not have my permission to collapse my "keep" rationale and insert your personal opinion ("Possible, but disputed, sourcing") in between. Your collapsing of {{user|Eastmain}}'s quote and inserting your comment in between is also unacceptable as you did not receive Eastmain's permission either.<p>From [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments]], "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." I object to your editing my comments. You should stop.<p>[[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 06:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 *'''Keep''' per {{u|Cunard}}'s analysis of analysts' analyses. [[User:MarginalCost|MarginalCost]] ([[User talk:MarginalCost|talk]]) 08:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' Please note that ''none'' of those sources are acceptable per NCORP. They are all reports of regular events and financial/earnings/stock reports. [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:135%;color:#886600">Jbh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup> Talk</sup></span>]] 11:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)