Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SJ Seymour Group

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. Scott Mac 12:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SJ Seymour Group[edit]

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

Appears not to meet the WP:GNG requirement and WP:CORPDEPTH. A small financial firm that has not attracted much notice. The cited articles containing quotes from an SJS employee do not confer notability on SJS, although they may on the employee; in any event, they're passing references at best. A search did not turn up solid secondary sources. Batard0 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient Reference

I think the references supplied from Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, FINMA and Labuan financial services authority alone suffice significant coverage from reliable and independent secondary sources. There are some words which sounds promotional which needs to be corrected. Gradually the content would gain more attraction and result in more references in the future.

The issue with the Hong Kong, FINMA and Labuan references is that they're simply notices that SJS is regulated by them, which doesn't qualify as significant coverage, unfortunately. They don't show that people have independently taken notice of SJS; they merely show that SJS has applied for and received licenses to operate in these markets. What we'd need is things like articles in widely circulated newspapers and magazines that focus in some significant way on the firm. Take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH for further guidance. I can't find evidence that such support exists, but if it does in fact exist, I think the consensus will be to keep the article. --Batard0 (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think getting reference from Honk Kong, FINMA and Labuan is quite sufficient as they are the top authorities to monitor this section of business in their specific countries.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is nothing in WP:CORPDEPTH that would qualify a company as notable simply because it is regulated by multiple authorities. If I'm missing something, please cite the policy. If we considered as automatically notable all companies regulated by the SEC, FSA, HKSFC, FINMA and others, we'd be talking about hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of firms, many of them tiny and obscure. --Batard0 (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found some references added them, I don't know much about Wikipedia policies but I think mentioned references in this article suffice the requirements. I have never been a contributor of content so don't know much about the guidelines but I surf at least 5 hrs a day on Wikipedia and have read many articles on various services, products and companies. Keep it or delete it doesn't much matters to me but I am sure later in future it has to be here someday as this is one of the top financial firm from Singapore and HK its just that it has less online presence for now. "Chow". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.126.131 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much hope that becomes the case; once the company attracts significant coverage in reliable sources like magazines, newspapers, etc., we can easily justify inclusion. If you like, the article could be moved to your userspace for safe-keeping and later use if the consensus ends up being delete. --Batard0 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from regulatory listings (which just establish that a firm is authorised to trade, i.e. the absolute minimal requirement in financial services) and PRweb press releases (which are primary), the only substantial reference is the CNBC article on junk bond trading, where a representative of this company is among those quoted, but that is effectively a passing mention. There is also a similar piece in a Reuters 2010 article on oil prices, but again a passing mention. Nothing sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH that I can see. AllyD (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I see in WP:CORPDEPTH it says An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, as you mentioned that in various references the SJS employees have just a passing mention or the quotes, if you would have searched little deep you would have found the various videos like these “reference1”, “reference 2” or “reference” where the SJS representatives have been speaking in all the major financial news channels giving their views from past 1 decade. Considering the reputation of these news channels globally in the financial industry these videos represents substantial evidence to cover WP:CORPDEPTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Submitmaster (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, the organization is not the subject of these reports. The subject is the markets and the analysts' views. These are just passing mentions, but if they do confer any notability, that notability is conferred upon the analyst and not the company. The company does not inherit notability from its employees, per WP:N and WP:ORGIN. It would be nice to keep this, but what we need to see is some coverage of the company itself in secondary, reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the coverage about the company seems not to be "significant coverage". Other "sources" seem to be by the company or its employees so would not be considered significant coverage of the subject company. On that basis, I'm not convinced the company has been the subject of enough coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Request Moderators to Checkout the new references added, I hope this suffice the requirements.submitmaster((talk)) 10:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean administrators? Admins have no particularly special role in an AFD discussion (except to close it) and Wikipedia is not a chat page or discussion forum with "moderators" who have special powers. These discussions are based on the principle of consensus. You need to make arguments based on policy and guidelines and convince fellow editors. Your assertions (in an article, including those about notability) need to be supported by reliable sources. If you have sources and would like to suggest that they confer notability, you are welcome to post them here (or ask other editors to have a look at ones linked from the article itself). After the AFD has been open for a while, an admin will consider the points made and determine if a consensus has been reached. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make things easier I editing the article to remove duplicate references and a couple that were not reliable sources at all. Of the 7 that remain, 5 do not give "significant coverage" to the company that would allow it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (the last 5 in the list). 2 are coverage of company employees giving opinions about markets - coverage of other things by the company, not coverage of the company. 3 are generic company listings (1 of which is not a listing for the company at all) which show which entities regulate the company's activities - this could not possibly be considered significant coverage of the company itself. Of the 2 that might be considered news "coverage", 1 is quite openly listed as a reprinted press release from the company distributed by PRWeb. It certainly couldn't be considered an independent reliable source. Of the 7 provided, the WealthBriefing source might be okay (though after 2 views it goes behind a pay-wall), though that would not be coverage enough to meet the requirement for multiple sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - The Sources Provided are Independent and if seen overall covers the every wikipedia policy as compared to all the other articles and reference. If the reference goes behind the paywall after 2 visits I don't think It won't be considered as a reference anymore. Dedeepyareddy((talk)) 15:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The misplaced capital letters, strange double-bracket talk link, WP:SPA contributions and strange prose strongly suggest you and User:submitmaster are the same person trying to "vote" twice, which is pointless because AFDs are not decided on the number of votes but on the weight of arguments. Strongly suggest you stop - I will happily open an WP:SPI, formally confirm your sock-puppetry and strike all of your contributions above. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2012 (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.