Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 that deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MDS International

edit
MDS International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is the second AfD debate. The first one, opened on 27 March, closed with No Consensus to Delete, having 3 votes to Delete and 2 to Keep. The reason for trying again so soon is the legal threats that were made and the constant improper edits to the article and the Talk page, apparently by partisans of two warring companies, MDS America and MDS International. The article was placed under full protection on 24 April and the protection should not be permanently lifted until the article's future direction is settled.

Here are the legal threats by User:Jeanclauduc: [1], [2], [3], [4]. At various times he has threatened to sue Wikipedia as well as six different named editors, one time claiming that the suits were already filed. The MDS International article lists Jean-Claude Ducasse as the CTO of this company, and we are assuming that User:Jeanclauduc is the same man.

An attempt at diplomacy was made by User:FayssalF, a French-speaking admin, but in the end, Fayssal's attempt to clear up one of the allegations (about XingTech) led to still a further legal threat, this time from 83.206.63.250 (talk · contribs), who we are assuming is the same person as Jean-Claude Ducasse.

Vandalistic edits have continued on the Talk pages of the two articles MDS America and MDS International, with editors often changing comments left by a previous editor. Legal charges and countercharges have gone back and forth, and regular editors have had a hard task to remove all the defamatory material. Since this company is of somewhat marginal notability, I'm proposing the article for deletion since it's not worth the hassle and the potential trouble for Wikipedia. At this time I'm not proposing MDS America for deletion, because although there has been a lot of policy violation in the edits there, there have been no legal threats. I realize that blocking a number of editors would be another way to handle the situation, but I'm offering this AfD as a more diplomatic alternative. EdJohnston 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable.--Kirby♥time 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spare us the trouble for a NN subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator's rationale is persuasive, but this article has also failed to establish the notability of this company according to WP:CORP by providing multiple independent reliable sources with this company as its subject. -- zzuuzz(talk) 13:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I don't understand, but there are 5 articles cited that seem to be about the company. It sure looks like it satisfies notability, and I get the impression that a lot could be found about it, especially in European papers. I would like to see better reasoning for the delete vote; as of now I'm leaning towards keep (with proper anti-vandal measures instituted). nadav 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of the 3 articles cited which we can actually access and read, MDS America is the primary subject of those articles and mention of MDS International seems trivial. Perhaps it is a notable company in france and perhaps good sources in french media can be obtained to assert notability, but the current sources do not cut it for me. Russeasby 14:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One linked article mentions this company more than fleetingly, and that's a press release. The titles of the unlinked articles are unconvincing. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's what I found (French and English): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. nadav 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I just want to emphasize that I don't know the backstory of the article or controversy. What is the connection to MDS America? nadav 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The cedmagazine.com link is another MDS America article. The broadbandweek.com link does however seem to give a bit more then trivial mention of MDS International, at least more so then others presented so far. I cannot read the french ones though. If you can read french, I am curious if you can take a look on the FR WP and let us know if there is an article there and if its worth translating? Reguarding the issues with the article, hopefully Ed will jump in and explain, I know he has been on top of this one so far. Russeasby 15:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The sources seem to indicated that MDS America is merely the American licensee of MDS International, so it's weird American firm gets the big article. I feel like I'm missing something here. nadav 15:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC) My French is terrible; I don't think I could be of much help with that. nadav 16:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not party to the initial agreements or other legal documents, but what I do know is that there is currently no relationship between MDS America and MDS International. Fabrice Ducasse was the inventor of most (all?) of MDS International's systems, and he now works for MDS America. MDS America bought a significant amount of MVDDS spectrum in the US and was responsible for the lobbying effort to keep the FCC from simply giving the spectrum to Northpoint. I'll see if I can get some more clarification from people who were directly involved, but it's definitely the case that MDS America does R&D and does not receive any sort of equipment or assistance from MDS International. Bhimaji 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • This seems to contradict the few references that have been found, all of which point to a relationship between the two. Obviously this is a complicated matter. Can you provide some references that establish the fact that there is no relationship? Based on sources we have, we can only accept that there is indeed a relationship. Russeasby 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's another one: [12]. Can we really justify keeping just the article on the American licensee and not the article of the international firm whose products it sells? I think not, and am voting for Keep. [See below 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)] nadav 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot of stuff going on, and some lawsuits. At the time of Kirk Kirkpatrick's testimony to the US Senate in 2003, everything seemed harmonious between the two companies. I have deliberately tried not to gather any more information as to the relative standing of the two companies, since it seems not to be discussed in any reliable secondary sources, and I think that for us to speculate on the meaning of primary sources, in a litigious atmosphere, would not be wise. There was also some information in the Talk pages (at least temporarily) hinting at one company or the other being totally incompetent, or not owning the patents, but with no proof whatever by our standards. An additional reason for deleting this article is that any defamatory material in the back versions of this article will go away, without having to use oversight. If someone wants to recreate this article at some point in the future, rewriting it from scratch using reliable sources, it could perhaps be considered. Someone would have to dig up reliable French sources, though, that provide the real current status, that did not just re-summarize the familiar information from old press releases that go as far back as 2002. And the overseas installations of the MDS system, is there anything at all known about their current status? Does MDS still operate them? Are they still selling and shipping their equipment? What does MDS America actually do? Do they buy their equipment from MDS International, or make their own? Do they still pay any license fees? They seem to actually be competing with MDSI in Ireland. It seems we know hardly anything, and everything you read (even in the press) sounds like a press release. MDSA's web site does not even mention MDS International.
    • I think that WP:AFD should have an extra clause in it, for dealing with articles that have legal problems, though it doesn't currently. EdJohnston 16:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia as a rule does not shy away from dealing with controversial topics, including court cases. If there is anything defamatory in the history, it can be deleted by an administrator. As for current status, we can just ignore it if there are no sources. The article can say "as of 2003, such-and-such is the case." And as of 2003, MDS America's CEO said "we are the North American licensee of MDS International, the leading designer of terrestrial broadband transmission equipment in the Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) band. MDS International has deployed terrestrial broadband systems in numerous locations overseas, providing video programming and high-speed Internet services to many delighted subscribers...MDS America hopes to introduce this innovative terrestrial broadband technology into the U.S. market."[13]. (BTW, here's an odd article on the French position on the case: [14].) nadav 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will see what I can get in terms of reliable sources for this information. However, what I can say as a matter of direct, personal knowledge is that MDS America does not currently resell or rebadge any equipment from MDS International. Everything that MDS America sells is either manufactured by contract circuit board assembly companies or is customized equipment manufactured for us by different industry vendors. I've seen the sales people for every MDSA-badged piece of equipment in our rack, so I know that we don't acquire them from MDSI. I'm not an official auditor, so I can't testify in court as to the matter, but i've asked a number of people at MDS America separately about this, and they have all maintained that there were never any licensing fees paid to MDS International at any point in time. There is, right now, no legal relationship between MDS America and MDS International. The contempt of court order makes it pretty clear that the two companies aren't on speaking terms, and specifies that, for example, the HyCaNC patents are owned by MDS America. It would be extremely strange for a mere reseller to acquire patent rights to a system if they are only rebadging it. MDS America does its own R&D; I'm personally designing some systems at the printed circuit board level for MDSA. Bhimaji 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your very direct and clear report. Are you aware of any ban on either company talking to the press? This might account for the difficulty in finding press accounts. EdJohnston 17:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • While very interesting in a tabloid sort of way, this is all really inconsequential to our task as wikipedia editors. The point is, there are no sources about the current status. However, there are a lot of sources about the status til 2003 (Here's an early article: [15]). So clearly we should just write what the sources say, making sure everything is properly cited with inline citations to the growing list of refs, while clearly indicating the date of the statements. We can't ignore this topic just because there is a controversy. If that was our policy, there would be no Arab-Israeli conflict articles. nadav 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello Nadav, and thanks for your insightful comments. Do you have the time or the patience to add the new information you have just discovered to the article itself? If not, can you sketch out the general form of the changes you envision? I can't imagine keeping the article unless there is SOME reference to the legal problems, but it would need to be appropriately vague. EdJohnston 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the legal problem would be mentioned here, would it not need to be mentioned in MDS America as well? Do we have any citable sources on the legal issues other then what has been tossed around on the talk pages? The big problem with both of these articles is the WP:COI editors from both companies who are going to continue to insist on editing and warring over these articles. Which is a tough problem to deal with. A lot of IP editors involved who I suspect will remain insistant as well. I am reluctant to go forward unless an admin is standing by to help, this could turn into a very tedious process, just to keep a small couple sentance article. Russeasby 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Semiprotection and blocks have worked for far more contentious issues. In terms of content, I think MDS International should be a short article describing their technologies, clients (Nigerian TV uses hypercable according to the Independent [16]), and court case against Northpoint. I will gladly work on it, but I want consensus to be established first about whether we keep an article about them despite the legal issues. nadav 19:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would need to see the actual wording of a statement about the legal issues before I'd be tempted to change my vote. Also there ought to be a 'Talk page consensus' that would back up that statement so that we could 'prosecute' any editors who reverted out that statement for 'disruptive editing', which requires a true Talk page consensus before it can be asserted, per step #5 of WP:DE. If there is no strong consensus, it will be very hard to defend the future article. Nadav, if you are so inclined, can you draft a sentence or two that would describe the legal issues, that can be added to the article? You may have to mention the 'Consent decree', or whatever that thing was, even though it is a primary source. EdJohnston 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there is a misunderstanding here. The current dispute is about the court case of MDS America vs. MDS International, whose only direct mention on the internet is this page [17] and the Contempt of court finding uploaded on wikipedia (which should not be cited IMO since it cannot be easily verified). Now, there is also the concluded case of Northpoint Tech. vs MDS America and MDS Int'l. About that case, there are a lot of sources, and that case is not the reason for the edit war (MDS Int'l and MDS America won the case). The natural course of action is to omit any reference whatsoever to the newer disputed case, since it is not covered anywhere. nadav 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, and especially not worth the headaches its been giving. Weak Delete now, keeping an eye on what nadav is coming up with. If the company proves notable I have to support keep, reguardless of vandalism and conflict issues. Russeasby 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+I am a senior member of the Management of MDSA. While MDSI was somtimes called by us the "licensor", both companies were owned by the same entities prior to the legal troubles (This has been admitted by MDSI) and considered ourself one entity. The legal problems between MDSI and MDSA which stems from the conduct described in the article were "solved" by agreement sealed under a protective order from the court. (This conduct is alluded to, or described by us and admitted to by MDSI in the various talk pages.) However the Court itself released the contempt order and therefore made it possible to discuss the terms mentioned specifically in the Contempt Order against MDSI. MDSI is prohibited from selling product directly or indirectly to the United States as stated in the agreement. MDSI also agreed to drop any civil lawsuits they had filed against any member of MDSA anywhere in the world, (Fabrice Ducasse was a Board Member and Owner of MDSI and was not covered by this clause.) There never were nor are there now, and criminal cases filed anywhere in the world. All of the threats to the contrary notwithstanding. Some of this should be obvious since even jeanclauduc admits that his oldest son, Fabrice, works for MDSA not MDSI. We were not involved in the "outing" of the Real Networks software piracy (which appears to be an employee in MDSI.) However we understand it since it was exactly what caused the "breakup" inthe first place and we are cooperating with REAL fully. 65.2.150.213 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, this information is not very relevant, because Wikipedia can only refer to facts appearing in secondary sources. Since this information has been sealed, we are confined to material that appeared earlier. When this new information is released, it can be incorporated into the articles. nadav 01:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked about my involvement with the article which started via WP:OTRS ticket 2007032010023302. While I can't disclose any private information, the complaint dealt with the fact that much of the article dealt with a supposed current legal situation without providing any sources. After reviewing the article, I found the complaint had a good deal of merit. Some primary sources (court documents) were cited, while most other links went to the company website. I removed the offending section and tagged the article as needing secondary sources. Due to very pointed disruption on the article shortly after, I reviewed the remaining sources and information and found that very little of the text was actually contained in the sources given. In fact, sometimes the source completely contradicted the article's text. Further corrections to basic facts were made by the account Jeanclauduc; after those changes, the article agreed with the company's homepage. There has since been almost non-stop edit warring by two accounts with clear agendas. User:Jeanclauduc has self-identified as an employee of MDSI, while User:WizardOfWor has self-identified as an employee of MDS America. They have both attempted to push their agendas on this article and one for MDS America. Most of the non-trivial coverage for MDSI occurred in 2003 around one incident and they seem to have little media coverage otherwise. In my opinion, this doesn't meet the spirit of the WP:CORP guidelines. Shell babelfish 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't profess much real familiarity with how the WP:CORP guidelines are applied, though I have read through them. I do understand the requirements for good sources for information. The federal court ruling is a reliable primary source - it is clearly true, but its importance, relevance, and context are obviously up for debate. Unfortunately, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about their impact on MDSI when the press doesn't seem to have noticed, let alone cared. A federal judge stated:
MDSI was in contempt of court
Certain disclaimers should be on the MDSI web site, but are not
Contrary to MDSI's claims on their web site, they do not have the rights to the HyCaNC patent - MDSA has them.
The reason I point this out is because I believe that any article about MDSI that made no reference to this would be deficient. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an entry for every company, but rather to contain useful, correct and relevant information. The apparent lack of any secondary source commentary on something as significant as a federal contempt of court finding indicates that it is simply going to be impossible for the MDSI article to contain the sort of useful information that an article on Wikipedia should contain. A permanently stubified article with no current information would be pointless. An article referencing just the primary court documents would not meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. WP:CORP is not intended to save Wikipedia's hard drive space. Rather, the idea is that notability is essential for encyclopedic accuracy. If the press doesn't care, and the web doesn't care, it seems to me that it will be impossible to have an accurate article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhimaji (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure the "press didn't care": clearly the fact that the case has been sealed, except for the contempt document, has something to do with it. About notability: Unfortunatly for the MDSI article, the main articles about the company that I cited (including an interview with Jean-Claude DuCasse) were in French (which I don't really know), so I at least am unable to extend the stub as I'd like. I am however starting an article on the Northpoint v. MDSA,MDSI case, and I suggest, if you are so inclined, that MDSI become a redirect to that page. Thoughts? nadav 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The press does cover sealed agreements: [18] [19] [20] come from a quick search of Google News. I've read numerous stories about Microsoft settling lawsuits with sealed agreements. The filing of the lawsuit against MDS International was publicly available. The entry of a settlement agreement was also a matter of public record - it's just the precise details that were kept secret. Generally speaking, it's considered very positive news when there is no longer a federal court case against a company. It's obviously a lot easier for journalists, and Wikipedia, to cover public settlements. However, sealed settlements are still noteworthy. Bhimaji 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here, and at the top of the AfD page, I'm giving a pointer to the document sometimes known as the 'contempt document' or the 'contempt of court order'. Although this is a primary source, it seems to be the only reliable evidence, visible on the internet, of what the current situation is between MDSA and MDSI. Thanks to Nadav for his tireless work, and I'll volunteer to help with any French documents, if he can find any that are useful. EdJohnston 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the above I am an employee of MDS America. I would like to thank EdJohnston and nadav for real efforts to bring accurate information to this article.
Northpoint sued MDS America and only subsequently added MDS International later in the case. MDS America defended the case, and was decided primarily on the testimony of Kirk Kirkpatrick of MDSA and Fabrice Ducasse, then no. 2 in the MDSI company (at the time both companies has similar owners.) MDSI's was only peripherally (they did no lobbying, no representation before the FCC MDSA hired Sen. Robert Dole) involved. The attorney who won this case is very proud of it and I believe has it posted on his web site. I will find the link and post it here. WizardOfWor 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update on article work. Nadav has been preparing material for the MVDDS article, and considering options as to which articles to preserve. Some editors who are associated with MDSA have been sharing general information which will help us make sure the articles are correct. There is some discussion going on at User_talk:Nadav1 and User_talk:EdJohnston. Please be patient. EdJohnston 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and recreate as redirect) I have changed my vote. Since all the media coverage of both MDSI (passing mentions in English, wider coverage in French) and MDSA are essentially either in connection with the Northpoint case or technical articles on MVDDS, I now believe both companies' articles should bcome redirects to MVDDS dispute (which is a work in progress) or MVDDS. I will afterwards propose a merge for MDS America as well. Since there are no dissenting opinions on deletion now, I think this discussion can be closed. nadav 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work, but I beg to disagree about the early close. An AfD that is closed early requires more discretion by the admin, and thus increases the chance that a deletion will be contested at WP:DRV. Keeping the AfD open gives a chance for many opinions to be heard. The five days will run out on May 3. EdJohnston 18:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose that would be wiser. nadav 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am Fabrice Ducasse, my name was mentioned several time in MDSi articles and talk pages. I am still a MDS International shareholder. I have been involved in the creation of the MVDDS systems since 1994 with MDSi and then MDSA. I am not sure if my point of view or my post will be considered in this talk. If you want, I can give you a brief historic of MDSI/MDSA/MVDDS creation and development. I will answer to any question. --Fabrice10 17:58, 2 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MDS_International_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138040752"