Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balboa Capital 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. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided below by two fellow admins and endorsed by a third. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balboa Capital Corporation[edit]

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

Non notable. Fastest growing almost always translates as "not yet large enough to be notable " A local recognition from E&Y is insignificant. Other references are mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added some material from an LA Times feature on the company. There is probably more information that could be added from the article, but I’m not sure if the revenue information should be included as the article is from 1994 and I’m sure the numbers are out of date by now. There are now several LA Times articles, several Inc. articles, and a few smaller publications used as references, and I believe that to be significant media coverage. This article was also accepted through AFC. Bcooper87 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH. Pax 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You do realize the fastest growing designation was for the period from 1988 to 1992 right? If it was 2010-2014, you might have a point, but you certainly don't here. I guarantee all major companies were once among the fastest growing companies in their industries. Whatever it was in 1992, the company is now pretty large ($250 million of transactions annually). Now on to the relevant question: is there RS coverage to justify an article? The answer is yes, per significant coverage such as: [1][2][3][4] and others. Additionally, the company has been quoted as an expert on loans by many publications: [5][6][7][8][9] and so on, which adds to notability. Pinging @Onel5969: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ThaddeusB. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: $250 million may seem a lot to peasants like you and me, but Wells Fargo lent 188 times as much in just one quarter last year. Compared to the big banks, Balboa is as microscopic as a bacillus. And "fastest growing" is a meaningless, ear-candy statistic for non-thinking audiences primarily bandied by promoters hawking tiny companies; i.e., a bum with a nickel in his pocket who finds a $10 bill sees his net-worth "grow fast" 200x, while a monster bank with $500 billion in assets might only go up 5% in one year - but it's a lot better to gain fifty bil than ten bucks, right? That's why virtually every time I see "one of the umpitty fastest-growing companies" claim listed in or close the lead of an article, the spam alarm starts wailing. Pax 08:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fastest growing designation is from a period 23-27 years ago. It should be completely irrelevant to this discussion. I guarantee that Wells Fargo was once (sometime around 1955) one of the world's fastest growing lender in percentage terms. Should it also be considered non-notable forever as a result?

Of course $250 million is a small amount compared to the world's largest lender. That also is in no way relevant. The notability requirements are not "largest in field", but rather "has received significant coverage". That has occurred here. (Incidentally, there is a big difference in "field" between an all encompassing business/personal/etc. lender and a company that only does business equipment loans, so the comparison is invalid to begin with.) My point wasn't that $250M = notability, but rather that the nomination reason was flawed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am struggling to understand what this company is supposed to notable for, lending to pizza makers or opening an office in Florida? There is one good recent story from the LA Times, but even that is about the company's growth, not about the uniqueness of its business model, or anything that makes it notable. So while there is a reliable source, it doesn't really establish notability under WP:CORPDEPTH. Walkabout14 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although to an overall weakish degree. Source examples include: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that despite the limited coverage, the company fails to meet any reasonable threshold in the second para of WP:ORGSIG Walkabout14 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The company has garnered some coverage in respectable publications like the LA Times and the Washington Post. As NA says the coverage is "weakish" - aside from a 1994 LA Times article which was significantly about the business itself. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 20 March 2015 (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.