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.
Delete All points point towards Zero. This is actually a rampant
WP:ACTUALCOI and horrible example of failing
WP:NCORP -- as
Drewmutt pointed out in his original AfD. I should have delved much deeper before my initial evaluation of
WP:SECONDARY. Each search of source refers back to the company itself. Good game of
SEO to manipulate a decent
PageRank. This page should be disposed of.
Ventric (
talk)
23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Analyst coverage means that there are analyst reports, which are independent sources. That is specifically listed in
WP:NCORP as a reason why publicly traded companies are usually notable. Your application of
WP:ORGIND is wrong. You seem to interpret "substantially based on a press release" to include any article about something that the company announced in a press release. That's not what it means. Here's an example: SafeCharge issued
this release about their 2014 earnings.
Here is an article where the "reporter" changed the first paragraph of the press release a bit and then slapped his name on it. That is "substantially based on a press release."
Here is the Globes article on the same story, where they incorporate the information from the press release, and bring other sources to bear on it, such as commentary from an investment bank. That is a perfectly good source for notability. As is the Haaretz article - the mere fact that it uses an interview with the CEO as one of its sources does not make it not an independent source.
Toohool (
talk)
18:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
Toohool, can you provide any links to analyst reports - if so, there's a good chance that the reports would serve as an indication of notability (but not a guarantee). For example, there's a publically available Morningstar analyst report that merely reports financial performance - in my opinion this fails the criteria. But I know there might exist other analyst reports that provide market sector intelligence or a breakdown into competition, etc, and in my opinion those reports would probably meet the criteria. There's a difference between stating that analysts cover a company and analysts publishing independent reports. Also, there are stockbrokers who label themselves "analysts" and those stockbroking companies may not always have internal "chinese walls" as they (or their funds or customers) may have a interest in the stock. I'm happy to change my !vote if there are analysts reports that do more than simply report the financials. I disagree in relation to the Globes article. It is substantially based on a company announcement and press release and while it summarises other events such as the two acquisitions, it is devoid of intellectually independent opinion or analysis and further relies on quotations from a stockbroking analyst firm (Numis) - it is also very similar to
this article, even down to the quotation from Numis.
HighKing++ 21:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
There you are again with that "independent opinion or analysis" line. Where is that in policy again? Perhaps you are paraphrasing from
WP:AEIS, which defines a secondary source as including "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". Synthesis is not a high bar to meet, it just requires drawing from multiple sources, which these articles do. As for analyst reports, I think you probably know that they are not generally readily available online. But, as luck would have it:
Here is a report from Bryan Garnier. 31 pages of analysis of SafeCharge's finances, history, offerings, prospects, and competition. If you take issue with analyst reports in general because of the potential conflicts of interest, I think
WP:NCORP is the place to bring that up.
Toohool (
talk)
05:29, 2 February 2018 (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.
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.
Delete All points point towards Zero. This is actually a rampant
WP:ACTUALCOI and horrible example of failing
WP:NCORP -- as
Drewmutt pointed out in his original AfD. I should have delved much deeper before my initial evaluation of
WP:SECONDARY. Each search of source refers back to the company itself. Good game of
SEO to manipulate a decent
PageRank. This page should be disposed of.
Ventric (
talk)
23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Analyst coverage means that there are analyst reports, which are independent sources. That is specifically listed in
WP:NCORP as a reason why publicly traded companies are usually notable. Your application of
WP:ORGIND is wrong. You seem to interpret "substantially based on a press release" to include any article about something that the company announced in a press release. That's not what it means. Here's an example: SafeCharge issued
this release about their 2014 earnings.
Here is an article where the "reporter" changed the first paragraph of the press release a bit and then slapped his name on it. That is "substantially based on a press release."
Here is the Globes article on the same story, where they incorporate the information from the press release, and bring other sources to bear on it, such as commentary from an investment bank. That is a perfectly good source for notability. As is the Haaretz article - the mere fact that it uses an interview with the CEO as one of its sources does not make it not an independent source.
Toohool (
talk)
18:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
Toohool, can you provide any links to analyst reports - if so, there's a good chance that the reports would serve as an indication of notability (but not a guarantee). For example, there's a publically available Morningstar analyst report that merely reports financial performance - in my opinion this fails the criteria. But I know there might exist other analyst reports that provide market sector intelligence or a breakdown into competition, etc, and in my opinion those reports would probably meet the criteria. There's a difference between stating that analysts cover a company and analysts publishing independent reports. Also, there are stockbrokers who label themselves "analysts" and those stockbroking companies may not always have internal "chinese walls" as they (or their funds or customers) may have a interest in the stock. I'm happy to change my !vote if there are analysts reports that do more than simply report the financials. I disagree in relation to the Globes article. It is substantially based on a company announcement and press release and while it summarises other events such as the two acquisitions, it is devoid of intellectually independent opinion or analysis and further relies on quotations from a stockbroking analyst firm (Numis) - it is also very similar to
this article, even down to the quotation from Numis.
HighKing++ 21:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)reply
There you are again with that "independent opinion or analysis" line. Where is that in policy again? Perhaps you are paraphrasing from
WP:AEIS, which defines a secondary source as including "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". Synthesis is not a high bar to meet, it just requires drawing from multiple sources, which these articles do. As for analyst reports, I think you probably know that they are not generally readily available online. But, as luck would have it:
Here is a report from Bryan Garnier. 31 pages of analysis of SafeCharge's finances, history, offerings, prospects, and competition. If you take issue with analyst reports in general because of the potential conflicts of interest, I think
WP:NCORP is the place to bring that up.
Toohool (
talk)
05:29, 2 February 2018 (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.