Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zazeen

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zazeen[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability; almost all the refs are not reliable sources for this. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as my searches simply found nothing better than a few passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly much for a considerably better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an organization doesn't get much news coverage doesn't mean it's not notable. We are talking about an IPTV service that's serving thousands of people and is being sold by major retailers (I have seen their demo units at Leon's. Just being mentioned in a major news outlet like The Globe and Mail is a sign of notability. The rest of the information was verifiable via reliable, 3rd party sources. Unless they get into billions of dollars in revenue or are involved in a major sex scandal, they won't be receiving any more news coverage. The reason I put up this article in the first place is the fact that I was surprised by the fact that an article didn't exist, while a poor quality article for a similar-sized competitor is allowed to stand (with a polite suggestion to do a complete rewrite). Bottom line: I went through the effort to put together a decent stub on a local business that serves all of Ontario and Quebec, even received mention by a major media outlet, is given floor space at a $2,000,000,000 retail chain and that effort is going to go to waste because you don't find it sufficiently notable?FiReSTaRT (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the comment by DGG.. While a couple of refs were from blogs/minor review sites, most of my refs came straight from the CRTC and one came from one of the biggest news outlets in Canada, part of the Thomson Reuters family.FiReSTaRT (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please note ref #2 as it's a dedicated pan-job story by Global News (major Canadian media outlet) that I just added (even though I used the reference for another purpose). FiReSTaRT (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are two sources that provide nontrivial coverage about the subject:
1. Brousseau-Pouliot, Vincent (2014-12-09). "Distribution télé: bientôt d'autres options au Québec" [TV Distribution: soon other options in Quebec]. La Presse. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  Zazeen, une entreprise ontarienne, compte lancer officiellement son service télé au début de l'année 2015. Leur stratégie: offrir un forfait de base ratissant assez large - incluant notamment des chaînes sportives comme RDS -, mais à un prix inférieur aux forfaits actuellement proposés par les géants des télécoms.
  ...
  Disponible en format beta au Québec depuis quelques mois, Zazeen compte lancer officiellement son service de distribution télé au début de l'année 2015. Pour profiter du forfait télé à 29,95$ par mois, il faut être un abonné internet de Distributel ou Acanac (les propriétaires d'Acanac sont aussi ceux de Zazeen). «Les gens n'aiment pas les grandes entreprises de télécoms, mais ils se résignent à faire affaire avec elles, dit Aaron Thomas, directeur du marketing de Zazeen. Avant que les jeunes de 20 à 35 ans se débranchent du câble, nous voulons qu'ils essaient une autre option.»
2. O'Shea, Sean (2015-05-25). "Companies use transit ads to offer big discounts, but details are in the fine print". Global News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  But many consumers may not know that the $19.95 deal advertised by Zazeen TV is only good for one month.
  ...
  Zazeen embarked on an aggressive subway and bus billboard campaign to increase market share. The ads promise “Over 100 HD channels and live sports” for $19.95 a month. But in small type at the bottom of the ads there is a caveat: “First month only. TV service $49.95 after promo.”
  The company told Global News it has not received any complaints about the ads, even though they may contravene the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. Section One of the code reads: “Disclaimers and asterisked or footnoted information must not contradict more prominent aspects of the message and should be located and presented in such a manner as to be clearly legible and or audible.”
Cunard (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding some perspective as I think it's bad form to vote for your own submission. This deletion discussion revealed a dedicated panning in a major, national media outlet (coverage doesn't get more notable than that), in addition to significant coverage in a smaller, legit media outlet and borderline coverage in another major, national media outlet. Unless the original detractors have additional objections or someone chimes in with new ones, bona-fide notability has been demonstrated and I don't see a reason to repost this discussion one more time. Two reposts were enough.FiReSTaRT (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received a compelling argument in favour of voting anyway. My rationale is above this post. FiReSTaRT (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2016 (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.