Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tandem Diabetes Care, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

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

One minor product, no different from others of the type except for having a touch screen. not notable DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom, seems like a promotional page thrown together for their one product. Little independent coverage. Most cites are standard investment snapshots, which we haven't counted as significant secondary coverage in the past. BakerStMD 00:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - We don't judge notability based on accomplishments, but rather based on coverage. The company is listed on the NASDAQ, which doesn't make it "automatically notable" but which does virtually guarantee tons of reliable source coverage. Not surprisingly, a quick search verifies such coverage exists. Pinging @Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question I wonder if others agree that the significant market-related coverage that Tamdem has been getting as cited by ThaddeusB above represents significant secondary coverage. While there are certainly multiple independent sources mentioning it, they aren't really analyzing the company so much as providing the same short bio of the company to accompany a discussion of the fluctuations in stock price. This coverage seems less notable to me, but I am happy to be persuaded otherwise. BakerStMD 16:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will refer you to WP:LISTED: "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." (bold added) In other words, the consensus-based guideline says the analysis of financials is just as valid for establishing notability as reports of business activity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG(No WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS) and WP:NCORP. I may have stopped looking too early, but all the articles I saw in ThaddeusB's search were either press releases, coverage of an insider trader employed by the company, or routine coverage of stock price activity. Stock price activity exists for any company on the market. ThaddeusB, could you maybe point us to a reliable independent secondary source providing significant coverage of the company? ― Padenton|✉ 03:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First you have to be kidding when you claim that there are no reliable, independent sources. You can try to claim they are "routine", but to say they aren't independent and/or reliable is nonsense.

As to whether the sources are routine, let me again point out that guidelines specifically say analyst reports are valid sources to establish notability. They are very carefully researched and given extensive information on the business activities of a business. This makes perfect sense as people rely on them to make investment decisions. I would suggest they are much better sources than media reports on average. I am not sure why you (and Bakerstmd) which to discount such sources, but there is absolutely no policy-based justification for doing so. Wikipedia cares only that a source is reliable, not why it was produced.

It occurs to me that maybe people are unfamiliar with what an analyst report entails. Here is a sample report. As you can see it provides investment info, yes, but also provides extensive background information about the company. Now, these reports are not normally free so I can't link to one for Tandem, but I can show you dozens exist. Your local library probably subscribes to some of the major ones if you really insist on verifying they cover Tandem in detail. I assure you they do. These are the sources that really establish notability. The news link was offered as a convenience to show an abundance of coverage exists. That people can still think a company no-notable in the face of 1000+ news articles baffles me.

Keeping in mind that analysis is not normally free: Here is some analyis on the IPO. Here is Bloomberg's extensive write-up of the company. Here is Reuters. Those alone easily establish notability - all are reliable and extensive. There are plenty of news sources too, like those on FDA approval of products, that aren't routine.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a trend at AfD to dismiss reliable sources as press releases and advertisements, which happened at another publicly-traded company Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Array Networks. The sources you've found here are more than enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Fikes, Bradley J. (2013-10-08). "Tandem Diabetes files for IPO". U-T San Diego. Archived from the original on 2015-05-01. Retrieved 2015-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  San Diego-based Tandem Diabetes Care filed Monday for an initial public offering of up to $100 million. The insulin pump maker plans to sell on Nasdaq under the ticker TNDM.
  The number of shares to be offered and the price have yet to be determined, Tandem said in a statement. Tandem's flagship product is the t:slim insulin pump.'
  For the six months ended June 30, the company lost $25.5 million, or $75.42 per share. For the same period of 2013, the company lost $17 million, or $56.33 per share. As of June 30, the company reported having $30.1 million in cash.
2. Fikes, Bradley J. (2012-09-12). "BIOTECH: Tandem Diabetes raises $36.4M". U-T San Diego. Archived from the original on 2015-05-01. Retrieved 2015-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Tandem Diabetes Care Inc. has raised $36.4 million in equity financing, according to a filing Tuesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Tandem sells insulin pumps, designed to give diabetics better control over their insulin doses. Its new t.slim pump resembles a smartphone and has the "footprint" of a credit card, the company says.
  The company is run by prominent San Diego biomedical veterans. They include president and CEO Kim Blickenstaff, formerly co-founder of Biosite Inc.; and director Howard (Ted) Greene, co-founder of Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc.
3. Darcé, Keith (2011-11-16). "San Diego's Tandem Diabetes to sell compact insulin pump". U-T San Diego. Archived from the original on 2015-05-01. Retrieved 2015-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  San Diego medical device developer Tandem Diabetes Care will launch its first commercial product, a compact insulin pump, in the first half of 2012, the privately owned company said Wednesday.
  The announcement followed approval of the t:slim pump by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
  ...
  The t:slim has been under development since 2007, the company said.
  Tandem raised $52.3 million from investors in 2009, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Another $12 million was raised earlier this year through loans and stock options and warrants, according to an Aug. 18 filing.
  The company was created in 2006. It has 90 employees mostly located at its Sorrento Valley facility.
4. Caplinger, Dan (2014-05-14). "Why zulily, Tandem Diabetes Care, and Millennial Media Jumped Today". The Motley Fool. Archived from the original on 2015-05-01. Retrieved 2015-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Tandem Diabetes Care jumped 12% as the company got an analyst upgrade. Interestingly, the analyst actually reduced its price target on the stock, but the recommendation came after a 40% decline in shares of the diabetes medical-device specialist over the past two months. Whether Tandem Diabetes Care will be able to realize its goal of creating diabetes-monitoring equipment that can dramatically increase the quality of life for those suffering from the disease is uncertain at this point. Yet with the incidence of diabetes on the rise across the nation, companies like Tandem Diabetes Care have a golden opportunity to make money and make a real difference for diabetes sufferers.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tandem Diabetes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the citations in the article are press releases or routine coverage in industry publications. I also looked at the references found by Cunard. These are all just routine coverage of routine financial announcements. Any funding announcement by anybody is going to get picked up by the financial outlets. Ditto for an IPO announcement. That doesn't make them notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you too ignore the NUMEROUS analyst reports which notability guidelines specifically list as valid sources. Additionally, "routine" business coverage, as defined by the guidelines refers to quality (brief, no analysis), not the reason for the coverage. In depth coverage ALWAYS establishes notability, regardless of the reason for the coverage. We judge notability based on the length and quality of the sources, not our personal opinion of whether a company deserved coverage or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2015 (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.