Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solium


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Solium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Everything's a press release, press release. WP:ORGIND yadda yadda fails WP:NCORP. this is the closest to coverage but appears substantially based on press release - certainly reads like one Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. It reads like exactly what it is, a promotional business directory entry written by a faithful employee who registered a Wikipedia account solely to produce it.  – Athaenara  ✉  01:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Athaenara Galobtter Thank you for your comments. As an alternative to deletion I have edited the article to avoid citing any press releases in line with WP:ORGIND. I've cited several independent sources, including The Globe and Mail, The Calgary Herald, TechCrunch, and Techvibes. This demonstrates notability. I see no failure of WP:NCORP Have a great day! Florencedoubleday (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC) — Florencedoubleday (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I disagree with Florencedoubleday's claim that Techcrunch and TechVibes are reliable sources. You could check with the folks at WP:RSN. Mduvekot (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- No indications of notability and promo copy, including a catalogue of products. Sourcing is PR-driven / WP:SPIP / etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Calgary Herald articles are not just press releases, and the Calgary Herald is certainly a reliable source. The Globe and Mail article is not a press release either.  Look, most business articles are very flattering to the companies they discuss - reliable sources don't have to be neutral.  Also, this is not the best-written article, but it seems to meet WP:CORPDEPTH through the Herald+Globe and Mail articles - Mparrault (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is another Globe and Mail column, clearly not a press release. There are also at least two other Calgary Herald stories not cited in the article, as well as a third story in the Globe and Mail.  If there are issues with the article's tone, I will be re-writing the article in the next few days.  If something must be done in the interim, move the article into draft space, but don't delete. - Mparrault (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a highly promotional piece (the globe&mail column). I do wish inclusionists would not waste their time trying to polish such obviously promotional pieces written by employees of the companies they're promoting.  This encyclopedia should not be used as a business directory or a stock tip sheet.  – Athaenara  ✉  12:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They're flattering because the business looks to promote themselves; we're WP:NOTPROMO and shouldn't be promoting businesses. They don't in-fact meet WP:CORPDEPTH as these promotional pieces fail WP:ORGIND being based on press releases/interviews. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, “positive” and “promotional” have distinct meanings. If the argument is that the content cited (and, by that, I mean the articles written by The Globe and Mail, The Calgary Herald and TechCrunch) is positive, I’m with you. If the argument is that the content cited is promotional, I honestly don’t follow. The articles cited do not ask readers to buy a product, attend an event, visit a website or buy a stock. They’re not fluffy or meaningless. They’re not personality-driven or celebrity worship. To use the buzzword du jour, they are not fake news. They contain verifiable facts that several journalists found newsworthy.


 * It’s a truism of life that the public is interested in educating themselves on business in general, and why some companies succeed where others don’t (as evidenced by business pages in every major newspaper in the world, business sections at bookstores, myriad Wikipedia articles, movies like The Big Short… I could go on!). It is an objective fact that reputable, independent journalistic outlets have reported on Solium over the course of several years.


 * To the claim that the content cited is PR-driven, or that Solium sought to get this coverage in order to promote itself: That’s inaccurate and impossible to prove. And I also completely understand why you might come to that conclusion with the information you were working with when you censured this article. But let me give you some larger context: As publicly traded company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, Solium is legally required to adhere to rules of timely disclosure of material information. In the US, the SEC has the same rules. The acquisition of another company is almost always deemed material (but depends on deal size) as is a major deal with a corporate giant (again, size of deal is a factor). If you read the press coverage, it largely focuses on topics that Solium was legally required to disclose. In business, material disclosure is done via press releases. What journalists choose to do with that information or why is beyond the scope of this discussion. If Canadian business, enterprise software, or securities laws are topics outside your usual scope, I am gently suggesting that perhaps review of this article might be better left to another editor.


 * To close, I want to say that I am certainly a newcomer and I will make mistakes. I’ve made changes as a direct result of your feedback. Try to remember when you just started out, and don’t forget to follow Wikipedia’s etiquette. Assume good faith. Be respectful. Don’t bite the newcomers. WP:WQ WP:DNB Florencedoubleday (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – I agree this meets WP:CORPDEPTH through the Herald+Globe and Mail articles. In the tech space TechCrunch is a reliable source. It is very difficult to get coverage by TechCrunch and any company that does is at least noteworthy Mikefw9 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Mikefw9 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: Almost every article about a business involves an interview of someone at that business. That doesn't mean that it fails WP:ORGIND.  This Globe and Mail article I quoted has several negative statements about Solium (e.g. "New investors in the small-cap stock should expect a stretch of earnings volatility", "Building international market share has been slow", "And spending the money required to raise that global profile and secure future growth is weighing on financial results in the interim.")  It is not just a re-released press release, it is an in-depth article about the company in a national newspaper.  The original Globe+Mail article also has negative statements about the company (e.g. "Solium was struggling until 2003").
 * Also, just because the article **in its current state** is overly promotional is not a reason to delete it (although I don't think the article is that bad).
 * There have been public companies with weaker sources that have survived highly contested AfDs - see Articles_for_deletion/Netlist_Inc._(3rd_nomination). What would User:Cunard say? -Mparrault (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost every article about a business involves an interview of someone at that business. which is why it is so difficult for a company to be notable, which is fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:ORGIND nor WP:IS mention interviews at all as a bar to independence. If they meant to bar all sources based on part on interviews, they should have said so.  That criterion would exclude even some quite critical articles that have a few quotes from people at the company.  The purpose of the independence criteria is to exclude self-published sources.  Sources can have some contact with the company involved.  WP:IS specifically mentions as a third party source "a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter" (emphasis in original) -Mparrault (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean based on an interview/press release, which the articles seem like. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability (organizations and companies) says (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. 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."  The article notes: "After attending Solium Capital’s (TSX:SUM) user conference in San Diego, Canaccord Genuity analyst Robert Young says the company’s growing customer base is happy." The article quotes from Young's analyst report and includes negative information: "“Customers were generally of the view that Solium has a technology edge and offers a unique global platform,” says Young. “Very similar to last year, the customers we spoke with are generally happy and are looking for ways to use Solium more. Almost all conversations highlighted the advantage of the share works platform and its seamless global coverage. Grumbles were mostly around clunky UI and slow inclusion of special requests. We heard no complaints on subscription pricing and minimal concern around transaction pricing.” In a research update to clients today, Young maintained his “Buy” rating and one-year price target of $11.00 on Solium Capital, implying a return of 10 per cent at the time of publication."  The article notes: "Solium Capital (TSX:SUM) is a tech that should be on investors’ radar, National Bank Financial analyst Richard Tse says. In a research report to clients today, Tse initiated coverage of Solium Capital with an “Outperform” rating and one-year price target of $12.50, implying a return of 22 per cent at the time of publication." The article quotes from Tse's analyst report: "“For its humble beginnings, Solium is no longer the new kid on the block -its run rate of revenue for 2017 based on our estimates is tracking to $87 million,” the analyst notes. “The quality of that revenue is also high given that ~95% of it is recurring. At the same time, this seemingly small company on the world stage has been able to sign some of the world’s largest companies to its platform as customers and partners, like Barclays in the UK and more recently Morgan Stanley and UBS in the United States, the latter being an expansion. And with expansion offices in France, Australia and Barcelona over the past two to five years, we see the Company on the path to conquer the world of equity administration. If that weren’t enough, we believe the Company has a “clean” capital structure and balance sheet with no long-term debt, $67 million in cash and cash flow from operations of around $9 million this year.”"  The article notes: "A new acquisition has Laurentian Bank Securities analyst Nick Agostino feeling bullish about Solium Capital (TSX:SUM)." The article quotes from Agostino's analyst report: "“We view the acquisition as consistent with Solium’s strategy to increase its large share in the private market, and believe it fits the company’s North American strategy of simultaneously tackling the market from both the public and private ends,” the analyst says. “We note that SUM made three acquisitions in the private market in 2012. We view this transaction as complementary given Solium’s aim to acquire, grow, and scale with fastgrowing private customers, subsequently benefiting as these companies increase their product usage and add employees. Ultimately, some of these customers may move through an IPO process at which time the company can further drive increased revenue per user. Solium aims to maintain Capshare as an independent operating entity with its existing management team, but will invest in its development and expects that as they grow, Capshare’s customers will transition to the higher-revenue Shareworks platform.” In a research update to clients today, Agostino reiterated his “Buy” rating on Solium Capital, but raised his one-year price target from $11.75 to $12.75, implying a return of 16 per cent at the time of publication."  The article notes: "Calgary-based Solium Capital Inc. offers technology to help companies manage their stock-plan administration, reporting and compliance. Founded in 1999, the company began life as a stock brokerage as well as licensing its Web-based software to publicly traded companies to help them with their administration of their stock-option, share purchase and other similar plans through a proprietary technology platform called Shareworks, which was developed by Solium’s managing director and former chief technology officer, Marcos Lopez. Solium was struggling until 2003, when it restructured, relinquishing its brokerage part of the business and focusing solely on its technology offering. It then found success with a number of large, locally based energy and resource companies willing to take a chance on a local tech firm’s offerings."  The article notes: "Since then, Solium has become a global, Calgary-based enterprise software firm with one million people using its platform and with offices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. It has signed on 46 of the TSX 60, and won mandates from companies the likes of Adidas, Shopify, Uber, Google, Barclays and Morgan Stanley; Heineken is a recent addition to its client roster."</li> <li> The article notes: "Once marketed primarily to energy companies, Solium's product has long outgrown the oil patch. With about a 75-per-cent market share among TSX 100 companies, the company is increasingly seeking growth outside of Canada. 'Solium, we believe, is at the foothills of a large, global opportunity,' Canaccord Genuity analyst Robert Young said in a recent note. 'We believe Solium is in a unique competitive position with the only global [software as a service] solution for equity administration on a single platform.' Solium has its competitors, some of which provide services from the cloud, but none have a single global platform, Mr. Young said. Having localized offerings can add time and complexity, particularly for multinationals having to combine data from multiple systems country by country, he said."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Solium to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In case someone wants to contest Cunard's arguments.
 * Summary of sources: Solium is publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. It has been the subject of numerous analyst reports, which Notability (organizations and companies) says are sources that can be used to establish notability. I included coverage about analyst reports from three firms: Canaccord Genuity, National Bank Financial, and Laurentian Bank Securities. Canaccord Genuity analyst Robert Young included negative coverage of the company, noting about Solium customers, "Grumbles were mostly around clunky UI and slow inclusion of special requests."  Solium has received substantial coverage from the national newspaper The Globe and Mail, which is Canada's newspaper of record. It has also received substantial coverage from the regional newspaper Calgary Herald.  The sources note Solium has signed 40 companies from the S&P/TSX 60, Standard & Poor's's stock market index of 60 large companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.  The sources note that Solium's customers and partners include Adidas, Shopify, Uber, Google, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and Heineken.  Solium clearly passes Notability and Notability (organizations and companies).  Cunard (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are more than two references provided above that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic meets GNG. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- still "Delete" per WP:TNT / WP:PROMO: there's nothing in the article that's not promotional. Just a listing of deal announcements, office openings, etc. No prejudice to recreation if can be done in a neutral fashion by a volunteer editor. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such promotional articles. Also see WP:BOGOF: using up volunteer time to fix up articles like this only leads to more spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2018 (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.