- 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. So Why 10:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
ROTH Capital Partners
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- ROTH Capital Partners ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria Muffin7Maniac ( talk) 13:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Muffin7Maniac ( talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep The article definitely meets the criteria for notability according to WP guidelines, the company has extensive mainstream coverage over multiple years, including being featured in a full-length documentary produced by Magnolia pictures. Cypresscross ( talk) 17:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The company has indeed been included in a documentary, but generally one sensational story does not equal notability (see:
WP:SIGCOV ). I don’t see evidence of “extensive mainstream coverage over multiple years”; of the listed sources, MSNBC is probably the best, but I hardly think having hip-hop parties makes a financial firm notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The New York Post is regarded as a very questionable source, and the firm has only a passing mention in the New York Times.
Muffin7Maniac (
talk) 09:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that The China Hustle is a "sensational" story and Roth has never released any statements disputing the report or facts in the documentary or any of the other media articles. The New York Post, as well as all of the media sources used as references, which includes The Globe and Mail, meet the criteria for a reliable source, according to WP guidelines. Cypresscross ( talk) 14:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be getting any attention... Pinging recently active editors from the page: Jbhunley, Infochief1, LilHelpa, Yngvadottir, Tom.Reding. Thanks. Muffin7Maniac ( talk) 08:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Several of the sources in the article are bare mentions but there does seem to be a lot of coverage of the scandal. They are a well known company which actively seeks publicity so they meet Perp#1 of WP:CRIME. The business related sources I find are, so far, press releases but many are other company's press releases. I am not sure of how to score those for notability but, since the meet CRIME there is not really a need to examine them in relation to WP:NORG. They host, what seem to be, several major conferences so there should be some main stream reporting but it may be buried in the 2000+ press releases. Jbh Talk 13:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks for the links. I'm not sure that
WP:CRIME applies here. Perp #1 seems to refer to the type of victim, not perpetrator. Not sure the "victim" here was a famous person? Many companies "actively seek out publicity", but that doesn't mean they are notable by Wikipedia's standards- on the contrary, in many cases. I would assume if a company were actively seeking it, it's because they don't have it :) And, in my (albeit limited) experience on Wikipedia, if "good" sources are harder to come by and coverage is inundated with press releases, it's usually a no. You are right though that there is coverage of the scandal. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like that would qualify as significant coverage of the *scandal itself*, not the company/perpetrator, who is simply mentioned in context. Maybe a Merge into
The China Hustle would be more appropriate, then?
Muffin7Maniac (
talk) 08:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think that a redirect/merge is a bad idea because it makes the only information we have about the scandal. WP:PERP#2 gets them over the notability hump and we can then use lower quality/less independent sources to flesh out the article. I do give some weight to their notability for their conferences being mentioned in other companies' press releases, but that alone nor other coverage I have seen, would let them pass NORG though. I suspect, per NEXIST, that there is some significant coverage of those conferences etc. in acceptable media. I just am uninterested in digging through several thousand results to find those sources. Jbh Talk 16:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks for the links. I'm not sure that
WP:CRIME applies here. Perp #1 seems to refer to the type of victim, not perpetrator. Not sure the "victim" here was a famous person? Many companies "actively seek out publicity", but that doesn't mean they are notable by Wikipedia's standards- on the contrary, in many cases. I would assume if a company were actively seeking it, it's because they don't have it :) And, in my (albeit limited) experience on Wikipedia, if "good" sources are harder to come by and coverage is inundated with press releases, it's usually a no. You are right though that there is coverage of the scandal. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like that would qualify as significant coverage of the *scandal itself*, not the company/perpetrator, who is simply mentioned in context. Maybe a Merge into
The China Hustle would be more appropriate, then?
Muffin7Maniac (
talk) 08:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nom. While there is coverage on the various japes at company conferences there is nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Therefore topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. \\\Septrillion:- ~~~~ 10 Eleventeen 08:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. So Why 10:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
ROTH Capital Partners
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- ROTH Capital Partners ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria Muffin7Maniac ( talk) 13:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Muffin7Maniac ( talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep The article definitely meets the criteria for notability according to WP guidelines, the company has extensive mainstream coverage over multiple years, including being featured in a full-length documentary produced by Magnolia pictures. Cypresscross ( talk) 17:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The company has indeed been included in a documentary, but generally one sensational story does not equal notability (see:
WP:SIGCOV ). I don’t see evidence of “extensive mainstream coverage over multiple years”; of the listed sources, MSNBC is probably the best, but I hardly think having hip-hop parties makes a financial firm notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The New York Post is regarded as a very questionable source, and the firm has only a passing mention in the New York Times.
Muffin7Maniac (
talk) 09:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that The China Hustle is a "sensational" story and Roth has never released any statements disputing the report or facts in the documentary or any of the other media articles. The New York Post, as well as all of the media sources used as references, which includes The Globe and Mail, meet the criteria for a reliable source, according to WP guidelines. Cypresscross ( talk) 14:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be getting any attention... Pinging recently active editors from the page: Jbhunley, Infochief1, LilHelpa, Yngvadottir, Tom.Reding. Thanks. Muffin7Maniac ( talk) 08:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Several of the sources in the article are bare mentions but there does seem to be a lot of coverage of the scandal. They are a well known company which actively seeks publicity so they meet Perp#1 of WP:CRIME. The business related sources I find are, so far, press releases but many are other company's press releases. I am not sure of how to score those for notability but, since the meet CRIME there is not really a need to examine them in relation to WP:NORG. They host, what seem to be, several major conferences so there should be some main stream reporting but it may be buried in the 2000+ press releases. Jbh Talk 13:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks for the links. I'm not sure that
WP:CRIME applies here. Perp #1 seems to refer to the type of victim, not perpetrator. Not sure the "victim" here was a famous person? Many companies "actively seek out publicity", but that doesn't mean they are notable by Wikipedia's standards- on the contrary, in many cases. I would assume if a company were actively seeking it, it's because they don't have it :) And, in my (albeit limited) experience on Wikipedia, if "good" sources are harder to come by and coverage is inundated with press releases, it's usually a no. You are right though that there is coverage of the scandal. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like that would qualify as significant coverage of the *scandal itself*, not the company/perpetrator, who is simply mentioned in context. Maybe a Merge into
The China Hustle would be more appropriate, then?
Muffin7Maniac (
talk) 08:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think that a redirect/merge is a bad idea because it makes the only information we have about the scandal. WP:PERP#2 gets them over the notability hump and we can then use lower quality/less independent sources to flesh out the article. I do give some weight to their notability for their conferences being mentioned in other companies' press releases, but that alone nor other coverage I have seen, would let them pass NORG though. I suspect, per NEXIST, that there is some significant coverage of those conferences etc. in acceptable media. I just am uninterested in digging through several thousand results to find those sources. Jbh Talk 16:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks for the links. I'm not sure that
WP:CRIME applies here. Perp #1 seems to refer to the type of victim, not perpetrator. Not sure the "victim" here was a famous person? Many companies "actively seek out publicity", but that doesn't mean they are notable by Wikipedia's standards- on the contrary, in many cases. I would assume if a company were actively seeking it, it's because they don't have it :) And, in my (albeit limited) experience on Wikipedia, if "good" sources are harder to come by and coverage is inundated with press releases, it's usually a no. You are right though that there is coverage of the scandal. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like that would qualify as significant coverage of the *scandal itself*, not the company/perpetrator, who is simply mentioned in context. Maybe a Merge into
The China Hustle would be more appropriate, then?
Muffin7Maniac (
talk) 08:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nom. While there is coverage on the various japes at company conferences there is nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Therefore topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. \\\Septrillion:- ~~~~ 10 Eleventeen 08:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.