Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acanac

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. Kurykh (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acanac[edit]

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

While it does get passing mentions -- such as this terrible rating from internet privacy experts in a CBC piece -- this small ISP does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY, in terms of significant coverage. Tellingly, the CBC didn't even list Acanac in its graph of notable Canadian providers, merely mentioning it in passing as among "many smaller ISPs..." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acanac is one of the largest independent internet service providers in the main 2 provinces in Canada - Ontario and Quebec. They have a larger subscriber base and brand recognition among the other independent ISPs that have a wikipedia page but are not marked for deletion such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBOX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vmedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazeen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start_Communications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNSi_Telecom

Also they have considerable citations from multiple secondary sources in the media as an alternative for Canadians from the big 3 telecom networks in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/internet-carriers-may-be-breaching-canadian-privacy-laws-1.2992125
http://www.blogto.com/tech/2014/07/internet_providers_in_toronto_beyond_rogers_and_bell/
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/distributel-acquires-yak-communications-592589371.html
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/27/majority-of-canadians-back-crtc-on-pick-and-pay-poll
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/gaming/playstation-nows-canada-problem-stingy-data-caps-may-hurt-streaming-games/article16471154/

I believe it is important to keep these pages up because the Canadian telecom industry is so dominated by the big 3 companies Rogers, Bell and Telus that it is key that Canadian citizens are able to be aware of the many options they have available to them.Nathanpalmer1986 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The media links you've cited do not establish notability for this company. As for the other examples of companies that have articles and I have not nominated for deletion, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The sources i have noted above to establish notability for the company because in those sources, they all state that Acanac is one of the leading independent ISPs in Canada and often cite them as the top alternatives to the incumbent ISPs alongside Teksavvy. Also, these other sources have remarked this same proposition:

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-tech-desk/openmedia-says-bell-plans-to-pull-usage-based-billing-proposal?__lsa=84f3-bfa0
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/12/best-worst-telecoms-privacy-canada_n_6850120.html -same chart as you provide above from CBC, and like the CBC article, Acanac is mentioned in the chart despite low ratings they are considered by CBC to be a significant independent ISP
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/crtc-0528-attach1.pdf/$FILE/crtc-0528-attach1.pdf
http://o.canada.com/technology/crtc-netflix-problems
http://o.canada.com/technology/personal-tech/how-to-get-cheaper-wireless-rates-in-canada
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/j-david-ellis/crtc-internet_b_2076284.html -this specific article even notes that Acanac is the only ISP in Canada to rank on their list of global ISPs quoting "This time Toronto makes #13 out of the list of 22, for a 28/1 DSL connection costing less than $33. Except it's not from an incumbent; it's from competitive ISP Acanac."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/steve-e-anderson/cell-phone-bill-moore_b_4577942.html And again all the additional sources all list Acanac as the best independent ISP choice for Canadians along side Teksavvy Nathanpalmer1986 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, please don't repeated bolded !votes like "keep" -- per WP:AFDFORMAT. Also, once again, there is no substantial, independent coverage of Acanac. For example, the Huffington blog post you've highlighted is once again a passing single mention. You seem to know this company quite well. May I ask, are you associated with it in some way? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated with Acanac. I did my research before signing up with them and therefore adding what sources i came across help me make my decision. The sources listed above all believe that Acanac is a notable company enough so to mention them as the best alternative for Canadians.
There are 12 credible sources some of them from the Canadian government that list Acanac as a notable companyNathanpalmer1986 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources listed above are not about Acanac, but simply namecheck its existence briefly within coverage of other things. We do not keep articles about companies just because media coverage of other things happens to namecheck the fact that this thing exists — we keep articles about companies only if and when they're substantively the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. And it's also not Wikipedia's role to keep a poorly sourced article just because the subject is a small upstart competitor to more entrenched media conglomerates — we're an encyclopedia, not a free advertising venue. Being a small company is not a barrier to inclusion on Wikipedia, if the article can be sourced properly — but existing as a small company is not a Wikipedia freebie, if blurbs and listicles are the best we can do for sourcing. And per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if there are other articles on Wikipedia whose claims of notability and evidence of sourceability are as weak as has been shown here, then that constitutes evidence that they should also be deleted rather than evidence that this should be kept. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet standards of notability for WP:COMPANY. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2017 (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.