Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyrtech

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The result was withdrawn. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrtech

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

I've spent a bit of time trying to find truly independent coverage for this company, but what can be found is very thin. Besides their demise, which was indeed covered by a short press article in a mainstream newspaper, everything else I could turn up are press releases or barely edited press releases published in venues like EE Times (they have a very low threshold for what they consider "news" and readily republish press releases with minor changes.) There was one feature[ish] article in EE Times about software-defined radio co-written by a Lyrtech exec [1], which seem to indicate a more genuine interest in the company from that venue, but nothing that really comes across as independent. They have a number of mentions in Google Books too, but I think they are too few to make the company notable. Maybe someone else can turn up something to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH? I'm not fond of piecing together a company article from press releases. The Deloitte award was basically automatic for being in the "50 fastest growing Canadian tech companies with the highest percentage revenue growth over five years". But we can hardly tell how they made that money, what were their main products, how much market share they had in their heyday, etc. because WP:CORPDEPTH coverage is missing. What we have here is basically is a sketchy, boom-then-bust story of another electronics firm with no real insights into how that happened either on the up or down slope; WP:MILL seems to apply at the present level of coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find that they received a $5M government contract in 2007 [2] (that's the year they got the Deloitte revenue growth award). It's probably related if not the main cause of that growth, but putting something like that in the article is verging on WP:SYN even if just by juxtaposition. Lack of independent, in-depth coverage connecting the disparately reported events makes writing a policy-compliant article very difficult. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This (in French) is the most in-depth article so far. Basically, it confirms that the company had its heyday in 2007 having 225 employees then, to drop to "barley 60" three years later. We aren't really told why or how that happened, except that by 2011 they had debts of $12M (and apparently found $7.5M to prop themselves--which in hindsight wasn't enough.) That article also says that company was "almost broke" in 2002 as well. Maybe the wiki article can be salvaged, though it's still going to be sketchy... The way it was written when started this article was a PR piece though (really, it only cited two press releases). Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much else and I've pretty much finished all Canadian web sources even mentioning the company; there's only something like 15 pages of google hits on Canadian sites. [3] Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually managed to find plenty more sources now; there are many more articles in La Presse (all in French) about the company [4]. For some reason, if I just search the .ca domain, Google seems not to find anything from affaires.lapresse.ca, which has most of the articles. I'm not sure why that happens. Anyway, I'm withdrawing the AfD nomination, although the article still needs a lot of work, the problems now appear WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2014 (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.