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 merge to Intuit. -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intuit Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Both as written and including potential sources, fails WP:NCORP due to near-exclusive reliance on WP:Primary sources. Of the included seven (7) references, ref #2 doesn't relate to this subsidiary, refs #3-4 are primary sources and refs #5-7 cover this subsidiary in either a tangential way or by making passing mentions, covering the company's non-notable product announcements, routine business operations, and regular company-to-company business partnerships or other arrangements. As such, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there are insufficient sources that provide WP:SIGCOV significant coverage.

Following my WP:BEFORE procedures, I conducted Google news and web searches with "Intuit Canada" enclosed in quotation marks in a phrase search and, of the potential sources I was able to find, I was only able uncover press coverage that covers trivial matters such as business partnerships, product announcements, pricing changes, and the like. The only potentially reliable source that covers this subsidiary in any significant way is ref #1 (a University of Alberta article)—but that's only one source.

Now, that's not to say that this company, as part of the larger Intuit, is not notable, but as a Canadian subsidiary/branch plant operation, it fails WP:NCORP. So, my primary recommendation would be to merge this article into a much condensed (a few paragraphs at most) section of Intuit. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added Comment from Nominator: Note also that of the Google Scholar searches, any results mentioning "Intuit Canada" were just in-text citations referencing company-commissioned studies—nothing about this company. Likewise for the Google Books searches, similar story whereby they are only mentioned as the publisher of the monograph, mentioned in a very tangential or passing way, or one of their executives was quoted or a company-sponsored survey cited in support of an unrelated topic. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge--Dreerwin (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The real story here seems to be WINTAX, if it truly was "Canada's first Microsoft Windows-based personal tax preparation software", so if someone wants to document that history in a reliable source, we might have an article here. As is, an upmerge seems like the obvious option. Guettarda (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Guettarda, Thanks, yeah. There could be merit to WinTax/QuickTax as a software product article, but as a geographic subsidiary of Intuit, it does make sense to merge this, doesn't it? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dmehus: absolutely. Guettarda (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2019 (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.