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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coast to coast (Canadian mobile network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The term is apparently manufactured by the article author; I cannot find any examples of it being used for that purpose. Furthermore, this article was created in the wake of the author's proposed changes to the template Template:Canadian mobile phone companies being rejected. It serves no real purpose that cannot be accomplished in the existing articles about the companies in question. Ckatz^chat_spy 05:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up. Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is basically a short essay about the incumbent Canadian mobile network providers. Pburka (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is not a concept which exists in the real world. → ROUX ₪ 18:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete basically an essay. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because
  1. Telus itself uses this exact terminology in its brochures (see scan),
  2. Bell partners with Telus, so that implies that Bell too is coast to coast and
  3. while Rogers does not use this terminology word-for-word, its coverage is very similar to Bell/Telus, and, as such, can also be considered coast to coast.
  Now, to answer all your concerns:
  • Ckatz, it is untrue that "The term is apparently manufactured by the article author; I cannot find any examples of it being used for that purpose." Now that Telus uses this terminology, there cannot be any more arguments about it being made up. As for "this article was created [because] the author's proposed changes to the template Template:Canadian mobile phone companies [were] being rejected", the article itself is a good stub, perhaps a start. The purpose of this article is to explain a certain, unique class of mobile network in Canada. Not one single article does that.
  • Pburka, the article can, should, and ought to be expanded. i've written an article as neutral and as good as i could, but i'm not perfect and i seek to improve it. Others on Wikipedia can also contribute, thankfully. The article right now serves as a way to describe and elaborate a bit about the coast to coast networks in Canada. It is certainly not an useless article or an advertisement. It's informative and teaches others about the three large networks. As for saying that it's a "short essay", well, it's neutral. See my comment to Dbrodbeck below.
  • ROUX, i've answered this question with Ckatz and Me-123567-Me. Telus uses the "coast to coast" terminology, and Bell and Rogers use similar, synonymous wording.
  • Dbrodbeck, as Wikipedia describes it, "An essay is a short piece of writing which is often written from an author's personal point of view". i've included many positive and many negative points about the coast to coast. Hence, i've made it as neutral as possible, and, as such, it's not an essay. "Coast to coast" is not a "point of view" expression. It is widely used by Telus, with the exact wording. Other providers use less accurate synonyms. To use "coast to coast" (east to west) is more accurate than to say "coast to coast to coast" or "nationwide".

So it's Telus who uses the exact terminology "coast to coast", albeit with dashes to separate the words. That also implies that Bell, whose coverage matches Telus, is also a coast to coast network. Rogers has very similar coverage. Because the expression is widely used, this article should be kept, expanded, and integrated into the "Canadian mobile phone companies" template. --LABcrabs (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Implied' is not acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Everything must be verifiable by reliable sources, without--this is the most relevant bit--being synthesised from any of them. 'Implies' is a judgement made by you, and is not supported by a reliable source. → ROUX ₪ 11:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, these networks meets criteria that others do not. That is factual, and not implied. To say that "it's not valid because Telus uses it" doesn't make sense, because other providers use synonymous terminology such as "nationwide" (misleading) and "throughout the country" (also misleading). This is why i chose the Coast to coast terminology, before i was made aware that Telus already uses it. "Coast to coast" is widely used in Canada, derived from "A Mari Usque Ad Mare", which means "from sea to sea". That terminology comes from the Bible. It does not come from Telus or any of the providers.

Here is the Telus pamphlet, with the "coast-to-coast" expression circled. Note that other providers use very similar terminology. [1]
LABcrabs (talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS WP:SYN, WP:NOTE and WP:OWN. The fact that this is a slogan for one company that is not mentioned anywhere except in their ads is hardly notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ok. Telus uses the term in their advertising. Can anyone provide a source (preferably a reliable one) to support the claim that "A coast to coast network in Canada is one that covers over 90% of the Canadian population without the need to use roaming of any sort"? Pburka (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 99% in provinces. The territories have under ⅓ of 1% of Canada's population. Largely inhabited, they receive little to no service from coast to coast providers. For some provinces, SaskTel, MTS Allstream, and DMTS Mobility provide a regionally-owned service. In these cases, coast to coast networks are perceived as "giants" and it is difficult for them to compete against the regional providers. (Another reason why the distinction is necessary.) All in all, there is a reduction or lack of service in all territories and in a few provinces. That being said, coast to coast providers serve all provinces, and over 90% of Canada's population.
    • Other than your original research, do you have any sources to support the claim that a network must service 90% of the Canadian population to be considered "coast-to-coast"? What I'm really asking is: where does this definition come from? Is it a formal concept defined by the CRTC or the industry, or is it a common sense definition which you've come up with by yourself? This terminology isn't specific to mobile providers. "Coast-to-coast" is just a common phrase in Canada (and the United States) to describe something which is national in scope. Pburka (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not just Telus. Note that the bold emphasis on "coast to coast" is added by me. Ken Campbell, the CEO of WIND Mobile, said "It has always been our intent to operate from coast to coast” as he plans to expand the network the Atlantic Canada. (Source: Mobile Syrup [2] ) In other words, WIND acknowledges that it is not yet a coast to coast provider. In regards to its HSPA+ Internet services, Rogers Wireless announced: "Rogers customers from coast to coast will now be able to access wireless download speeds of up to 21 Mbps." (Source: Rogers RedRoard [3] ) Moreover, many users' comments on the independant Mobile Syrup website use the terminology "coast to coast". (Source: MobileSyrup.com ) For this reason, the terminology is engraved in the minds of Canadians when referring to a mobile network servicing all provinces. It's not just the companies that use the expression "coast to coast". Canadians, growing up with technologies like VIA Rail, also use these words to describe mobile networks. --LABcrabs (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are hardly reliable third party sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am fairly new at Wikipedia, and "edit conflicts" delete my text, even if i click the "Back" button in Opera to try to copy my text. Regardless, Dbrodbeck, i find i've explained with my currently published comments why my article does not come in conflict with the WP:RS WP:SYN, WP:NOTE and WP:OWN you mentioned. Also, why are my sources unreliable? Mobile Syrup is independent, and use the expression "coast to coast" in quotes, user comments, and they use it themselves in their original articles. ("an exclusive roaming agreement that will guarantee nationwide cellular service coast to coast." See: Vidéotron article ) So now we have Telus, Rogers Wireless, WIND Mobile, Mobile Syrup, and the customers themselves. These are all reliable sources. Thank you. --LABcrabs (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go read WP:RS again then. 'Many users comments' on a website is not a source. This is pure WP:OR. As a start, you might try typing 'coast to coast network' in quotes into a google news search, while it is not the be all and end all, it might be instructive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - where exactly is the definition (ie, "90% of the Canadian population without the need to use roaming") found, and why are the references for Telus and Rogers pointing to French language pages? PKT(alk) 18:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article references are now in English. --LABcrabs (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Any "Delete" arguments that claim "the article is an essay" or "the terminology is unused", such arguments are false. For one, Wikipedia's "Essay" article states that this form of writing is "an author's personal point of view". But the fact is that these networks serve all provinces, and the CDMA networks expand to the territories as well. As for the terminology, it's not only a self-description from those networks, but it's also used by their competitors, customers, and even Clara Hughes.(source) So the terminology article is not an essay, nor is the term made up. --LABcrabs (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you're making up is the idea that the fact of operating across Canada instead of regionally is, in and of itself, a uniquely notable concept that requires its own separate article. You're committing a logical fallacy here — reifying a simple descriptive phrase into some sort of uniquely encyclopedic real-world concept, which it simply isn't. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To the extent that this term exists at all in real world usage, it's not an article topic; it's merely a phrase that's used to describe the fact that Telus operates right across Canada, not an actual thing per se. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we don't need articles which serve merely to define marketing phrases. Absolutely any mobile provider in absolutely any country on earth that has ocean coastlines can legitimately call itself a "coast to coast network" if it operates throughout its entire country; there's no way on earth in which this is some sort of uniquely Canadian concept. And not only does it mean the same thing in the United States and Russia and France and the United Kingdom and Australia as it does in Canada, it also means the same thing when you apply it to a chain of hamburger joints — which hardly means that we need a separate article about "coast to coast fast food chain" as a distinct concept from "regional fast food chain", either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge is another option, besides the "Keep" that i previously mentioned. For example, a handful of users at Template:Canadian mobile phone companies insist that there is no distinction between a coast to coast network and a regional one. But other users would prefer to see the template accurately and informatively divided.
  
  In the very first edition of the template, there were only 8 providers listed, including an MVNO or two. It made sense that they were all listed together without category subdivisions. Only very recently, now there are over 30 networks listed : 16 as "networks", 14 as "virtual" and 1 as defunct. Some of the information is inaccurate, because BCE-owned networks (specifically Northerntel, NMI and Télébec) are listed as separate entities. Networks such as iDEN-based MiKE are missing, while some companies currently listed in the template are red links.
  
  It's very frustrating that some Wikipedians insist that their way is right and that any changes to that are mostly wrong. For example, they let me add the defunct Amp'd Mobile, but not MiKE. They also do not let me split up the template according to the consensus that it should be done from a defined and neutral point of view. The information about coast to coast networks could be kept here or placed on a Canadian networks page. But to get my contributions frequently removed is what i find to be very insulting and counterproductive. --LABcrabs (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, counterproductive is allowing edits into the encyclopedia that fail a large handful of basic content policies. There's this old saying, ok? "There's a mark at every poker table. If you can't see him, it's you." This is applicable in a wide variety of contexts. In the Wikipedia context, it boils down to: if your contributions are frequently removed by a variety of other editors, it's pretty well certain that there is a problem with your edits. I'm honestly baffled as to why this is such a difficult concept for so many people to grasp. → ROUX ₪ 10:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What i don't understand is why, for over three years, the "coast to coast" and "regional" operators were separate in the "Canadian mobile phone companies" were split. But now, to create a "better" template, we just put all 16 networks together. They are NOT the same types of networks and NOT the same category! Also, why are there Bell-owned "networks" and three red-link providers but no Mike?
      
      Two users (Ckatz & Me-123567-Me) DON'T own the template and DON'T get to decide nearly (if not) everything that happens to it. --LABcrabs (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the definition used in the article is WP:MADEUP, and the terminology "coast to coast" in Canada's cellphone market basically means just what it always means: from St. John's to Vancouver Island. PKT(alk) 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition is not made up! Strike that out! The content can be merged at the very least!  :'( --LABcrabs (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amigo, I'll consider reversing my position if there is a proper answer to my previous question, viz: "where exactly is the definition (ie, "90% of the Canadian population without the need to use roaming") found"? Did the CRTC publish the definition somewhere, perhaps?? PKT(alk) 16:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged where? And again: nobody said you're making up the basic existence of the phrase "coast to coast" — what you're making up is the idea that it somehow means something uniquely notable and encyclopedic specifically when applied to Canadian mobile phone networks. When, again, in reality it just means the same damn thing that it means when applied to Canadian hamburger restaurants or television networks or truck transportation companies, or Australian mobile phone networks, etc. It's not a notable thing or a useful article — it's just a phrase. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2011 (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.