Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation[edit]

Unnotable company; no evidence of significant coverage, does not meet the criteria in WP:CORP. A prod of this page was removed even though it was endorsed. Triplestop (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve It appears to be a real corporation, a large REIT. Granted, the article is woefully inadequate. However, corporations of this size are definitionally notable.Historicist (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Rasputin's penis. If we started redirecting spam articles to Rasputin's penis we would eventually see less spam. Drawn Some (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling my rewrite spam? Cunard (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N per this Google News Archive search. See this article, this article and this article from the Los Angeles Business Journal, as well as a brief mention in the Los Angeles Times. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And is there any significant coverage beyond a local business journal and a brief mention in a local paper? Triplestop (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with local sources? The LA Business Journal and the LA Times are both reputable publications. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a mortgage REIT, publically traded on the NYSE with a market cap of about 0.7 billion USD. A shadow of its former self but still considered notable per WP:CORP. Plenty of references like Hoovers and BusinessWeek profiles and also coverage in news because of the financial "crisis". Triplestop, if you look at WP:CORP in the sub-sub-section "Publicly traded corporations" you'll see it meets. And the LA Times, NY Times, etc. are not considered merely "local". Drawn Some (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Did the nominator even make a good-faith attempt to confirm the alleged lack of sources? In less than two minutes, I found numerous nontrivial mentions in highly reliable publications.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20090512-907720.html?mod=wsjcrmain

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20090413-902312.html

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/03/12/afx4765443.html

http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/AccountingRisk.do?tkr=anh

http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/16/anworth-default-notice-markets-equity-cx_af_0816markets25.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS260322+03-Feb-2009+BW20090203 — Rankiri (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The listing on the NYSE alone is strong evidence of notability. I think that pretty much makes it automatic, in fact. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep NYSE listed REIT. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep The subject passes WP:CORP and the article passes WP:RS. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2009 (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.