Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada Computers


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 15:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Canada Computers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As written, fails WP:NCORP. Cited references are all primary sources. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for both "Canada Computers & Electronics" and "Canada Computers and Electronics" reveals no press coverage about this company—the only coverage that I could find were one or two passing mentions that were tangential in nature. As such, WP:CORPDEPTH potential is non-existent and fails WP:SIGCOV. In short, an unremarkable local Canadian computer retailing chain. Obvious WP:CORPSPAM. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to AfD Closer - Redirect page Canada Computers & Electronics will need to be deleted as well. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: the chain is better known as "Canada Computers", for which there are a number of third-party refs accessible via Google News. The current article is terribly sourced, but sources do exist. The company also appears in Forbes list of Canada’s 25 Best Employers in 2019, whatever that's worth. Mind  matrix  17:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , That article you referenced, though, doesn't count as significant coverage and is arguably a non-independent source since it is a promotional list of featured companies, employers, and the like. Also, to your first point, I didn't search "Canada Computers" initially thinking it'd be too generic, but actually, upon searching that, all sources are social media pages, directory listings, and the like. There's a single press mention on the employees voting to unionize, but that in itself constitutes routine operations. fails WP:GNG and, I repeat, it lacks WP:SIGCOV. Well known does not equal notable. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , As a follow-up, anecdotally, based on what I'm saying, I recommend fully 10-20%, if not more, of the articles related to companies on Wikipedia don't pass WP:SIGCOV and don't meet WP:NCORP/WP:NORG. We could keep ourselves busy for a year or more if we made a concerted effort to weed out the chaf, like this unremarkable company. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Looking at the Google News sources now, most of them are references to "canada computers" or "Canada computers," which have nothing to do with this company. There are some press mentions on a local store break-in and theft, which itself is ultra-local and not notable. There's a mention of them taking over the store leases of bankrupt NCIX, which is also not notable. Remainder of sources relate to blog posts (MobileSyrup figures prominently, which itself is a quasi-spammy SEO outfit) that mention "Canada Computers" in a very tangential way (that is, "this device can be purchased at Canada Computers"). Doug Mehus (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My keep was actually intended as a comment, so I've changed it. I'll note that at one point, there were a number of reliable sources for store openings (such as this), amongst other coverage, but they seem to no longer exist. (There's a few sources with a small amount of detail, but not sufficient for the WP article to be retained, such as this, or this glancing mention.) As for your points, I always exclude simple mentions from my search results (eg - there are a bunch of hits to Tom's Hardware citing that certain products are sold at Canada Computers which I wholly ignore), and when perusing hits I refine the search by excluding SEO and similar sites with a blanket "-MobileSyrup" or some such. Mind  matrix  19:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for updating it to a comment and for clarifying that, though. Store openings and asset purchases/sales count as "trivial coverage" at any rate, no? I noted that Andre's Electronics Experts (a regional chain of electronics stores in B.C.) doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Visions Electronics, I see, has a page, but it, too, has a notability tag added to its page. Looks like it was added by one or more SPAs, possibly COI-conflicted editors.
 * That's good to hear you add a -MobileSyrup to your search strings.Doug Mehus (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear you add a -MobileSyrup to your search strings.Doug Mehus (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Added Comment from AfD Nominator: Note that administrator Accounting4Taste previously deleted Canada Computers in 2009 for the reason that it was unambiguous advertising and shameless self promotion. Arguably, this page still is that. See: Special:Log for Canada Computers.Doug Mehus (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Other than that I found only press releases, other public relations material, and some general tracking of its stock prices in The Wall Street Journal. The best independent articles discuss it's charity program for schools and other community organizations, but I couldn't find any good sources on the actual retail arm of the organization. It's a borderline call.4meter4 (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I've been in their stores. For the life of me I cannot image a reason they would be notable for selling PC parts. A search turned up stories like this one about store openings. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did multiple searches for sources and could not find coverage that allows Canada Computers to pass Notability. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've shopped there myself — in fact, I usually go to Canada Computers before I'll even go to Best Buy — but the fact that I'm familiar with it is not a notability claim. What we require is reliable source coverage about it in media, and that's clearly lacking. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep. I did find an article on a labor relations lawsuit involving the company. "Ontario Labour Relations Board decision: Gabriel Posada v United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada, 2019 CanLII 22115 (ON LRB)", Financial Law Reporter, April 5, 2019. Their school donations program is discussed in multiple sources:
 * 1) "Canada's e-waste problem needs a cleanup: most recycling experts are at odds over resolving the problem. (News)"; Zyska, Patricia; Computer Dealer News, July 26, 2002, Vol.18(14), p.9(1)
 * 2) "Proposed school to go "high-tech""; Safer, Andrew, Computing Canada, Jul 6, 1994, Vol.20(14), p.1,6
 * 3) "Universal service and the digital revolution: beyond the Telecommunications Act of 1996"; Lapointe, Markenzy; Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, Spring, 1999, Vol.25(1), p.61(1)
 * 4) "Text ‘‘Superpowers’’: A Study of Computers in Homeless Shelters"; Moser, Mary Anne; Science, Technology, & Human Values, November 2009, Vol.34(6), pp.705-740.
 * I wouldn't say it's a borderline call. Of those four articles you posted, those sound like passing mentions or mentions in which they are mentioned in a tangential way. A single labour relations board ruling would count as trivial coverage related to personnel matters and routine business operational matters, nothing significant. I would urge you to re-consider your !vote even though it's notionally not a vote.--Doug Mehus (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is flawed because you are failing to follow policy at WP:Offline sources and WP:AGF. I've noticed you have a tendency to challenge offline references which you have obviously not read, and that just simply is not a policy based way of approaching discussions where other editors are using offline references which they have read. I have access to ProQuest and other databases through my university library. If you haven't actually read a source yourself, you shouldn't be offering judgements on whether it meets significant coverage or not. I have read the articles in question, and inspite of their names, they do offer more than just passing mention of Canada Computers's charitable program.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I always assume good faith and your thinking that I am failing to assume good faith seems to, in fact, not be assuming good faith. The articles you referenced from Whpg's comment are not offline sources, but online ones that are not available. As well, re: WP:OFFLINE, it is not enough to just say the sources exist or probably exist. We actually have to read them, which you say you have in terms of the articles you mentioned in Canada Computers, but for everyone's benefit, you should summarize the articles themselves. Also, the "school donations program" for which you cite four sources doesn't count as significant coverage; it's related to philanthropic endeavours, corporate sponsorships, etc.—all trite and trivial matters. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read the articles. In this case the articles more than trivial coverage on their charitable arm, but I agree with you that the articles really aren't about the organization itself but about one program that they run which is why I didn't offer a definite keep. In Computer Dealer News the program was described in detail as a potential means of recycling computer parts with positive environmental and social outcomes. In Computing Canada the article was entirely about a high school receiving computers through the program, and the program (in a singular context) was the main subject of the article. In Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal the program was used as an example of a way to create equity access to technology among poor communities, and in  Science, Technology, & Human Values the company's program was discussed as a possible reproducible program in order aid homeless populations to gain access to computers for needs like employment and social services. All independent and non-tangential.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believed that you read the articles; that was never in question in my mind. In terms of the first article, you rightly point out that the article is about the company's charitable giving program, but I still question how this meets WP:SIGCOV. From the other articles, which is more or less what I gathered from reading the abstracts and title (you can usually understand what's going on fairly well by reading the titles and/or abstracts), these just talk about the company's charitable donation program. So, it seems to me there could be merit to mentioning this company as part of an article on, maybe, corporate philanthropy or in-kind corporate donation programs, but in terms of an article about this company, it fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. So, might you consider editing your first comment and !vote of very tentative potential support to Comment or Observation or something like that? In this way, I think it's possible for companies to be mentioned in passing in other topical Wikipedia articles but still not have articles about them. Similar with First Nations Bank of Canada, that company may be worthy of one or more mentions in terms of providing banking services in northern Canada and Indigenous communities, but in terms of sources about the organization, there's simply not enough sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it depends on how you look at it. The charitable activity is part of the organization's activities just as much as their retail business. Those activities have gotten significant coverage. That's why I am saying it's borderline. I personally am on the fence, and am going to wait and see what others say. I think your views are pretty clear in the delete camp. I am undecided. I am leaving it as I stated, because it is essentially a keep argument that I am tentative on. 4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Reformat into an article about their charity arm/school donation program, based on 4meter4's sources. feminist (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That could be potentially done as a new article, possibly through AfC, but there's nothing of interest in this article, as written, that would warrant maintaining edit history. This is an ultra-short stub-class article consisting of one- or two-sentences. I also question whether such an article on a single company's philanthropic initiatives would meet standalone notability; however, there could be merit in creating a section of a technology retailers' philanthropic initiatives encyclopedia article (say, Computer retailer philanthropic initiatives or Technology retailer philanthropic initiatives). --Doug Mehus (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If such an initiative meets WP:GNG, why not? feminist (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah. Off-topic: I keep having JavaScript errors with the reply-to script; have tried reporting errors to Enterprisey, but, presumably, he's quite busy. Are you aware of any other reply-to wiki scripts I could install instead? Doug Mehus (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately I am not aware of any other reply-to script. feminist (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, it's certainly damn hard to search for because of the common name (I'm not using just a Google search.) No comment on notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some sources out there User:SportingFlyer, and I've added some to the article, relating to expansion, ownership, etc. But hard-pressed to find significant coverage. I have to say I'm a bit surprised, that in the 30 years or so that this well-known ubiquitous national chain has been around, that they've attracted so little attention, given their unusual longevity in their particular business. Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. If they've been around 30 years there should be newspaper coverage of them, but all I'm finding are advertisements so far. They are mentioned in almost blasé manners in some CBC articles. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing that can be helpful is restricting google searches to particular websites. e.g. . I checked CBC, The Star, and the Globe and Mail this way, but didn't find much beyond passing mentions, and routine coverage of the fire. The best sources I could find (which weren't previously discussed) are:
 * brief mention of CC as an example of a "Markham immigrant success story"
 * a couple brief mentions of CC as an example of a store that "caters to OTA do-it-yourselfers" (in the context of a fluffy/personal piece about cable-cutting) Colin M (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. We have a fair number of passing mentions in RS, but I don't think they add up to WP:SIGCOV. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. As a Torontonian, it feels notable to me - I think of it as one of the more iconic businesses in the nexus of computer stores around College and Spadina. Heck, this BlogTO post describes them as "the godfathers of this IT stretch". But I have to go with policy over my personal biases. Colin M (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.