Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tellurian Inc

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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tellurian Inc

[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)

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:COMPANY. All I see beyond routine announcements is a couple of Motley Fool articles.[1][2] Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Timberlack (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I really am not sure what you are looking at because this company has been extensively covered in business publications, coverage that generally is not promotional -- quite the opposite, actually, they're not doing so well. Examples: recent coverage in the Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/824ce0f4-e014-48e5-80fb-95beede80398; googling site:ft.com "tellurian" brings up much more), Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-02/u-s-gas-exporter-tellurian-thrown-into-turmoil-amid-market-rout; again, site:bloomberg.com "tellurian" brings up a great deal of news). These seem analogous to "news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger" per WP:CORPDEPTH (merger, no, prolonged controversy, yes) The company was also the subject of a lawsuit Bloomberg described as "a bitter, multiyear dispute between major players in the nascent U.S. gas-export industry" (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/days-before-trial-of-the-year-gas-exporters-settle-feud -- this is about the end of it but there is plenty of coverage of the suit prior). The original creator of the article appears to be affiliated with the company, which would explain the omission of such sources given that they are unflattering; however, they exist, and seemingly en masse. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

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.

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/TELL/price-target/^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
1/21/2021	Wolfe Research	Upgrade	Peer Perform ➝ Outperform	$5.00	Low	View Rating Details
7/5/2020	Morgan Stanley	Reiterated Rating	Sell		Medium	View Rating Details
6/10/2020	Roth Capital	Initiated Coverage	Buy	$5.25	High	View Rating Details
6/1/2020	Stifel Nicolaus	Downgrade	Hold ➝ Sell		Low	View Rating Details
3/12/2020	Credit Suisse Group	Reiterated Rating	Outperform ➝ Neutral		High	View Rating Details
3/12/2020	Raymond James	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Market Perform		Low	View Rating Details
3/9/2020	Robert W. Baird	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Neutral	$5.00 ➝ $2.00	High	View Rating Details
3/3/2020	Seaport Global Securities	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral		High	View Rating Details
9/17/2019	Evercore ISI	Initiated Coverage	Outperform	$14.00	Low	View Rating Details
8/23/2019	Bank of America	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral		High	View Rating Details

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

Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://ir.tellurianinc.com/analyst-coverage^{Internet Archive} has a list of firms and analysts who publish analyst reports about Tellurian:

Firm	Analyst
Bank of America Merrill Lynch	Julien Dumoulin-Smith
Cowen	Jason Gabelman
Credit Suisse Securities	Spiro M Dounis
DNB Markets	Joergen Lian
Evercore ISI	Sean Morgan
Morgan Stanley	Devin McDermott
Raymond James	Justin Jenkins
ROTH Capital Partners	John M. White
Scotia Howard Weil	Alonso Guerra-Garcia
Seaport Global Securities	Sunil Sibal
Stifel	Ben Nolan
Tuohy Brothers	Craig Shere
Webber Research & Advisory LLC	Michael Webber
Wolfe Research	Sam Margolin

Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added the above sources mentioned, as well as some more. It needs a review and expansion, ideally from someone more knowledgeable about business news and/or the gas industry; I also worry that I overcompensated for the puffery that was there by skewing too negative. At any rate, though, it should now more than demonstrate that it meets WP:CORP. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list of brokers covering this company, alone, indicates notability --Devoke water 17:26, 25 February 2021 (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.