Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoanMart

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. czar 03:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LoanMart[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV, this is a WP:MILL company without significant enough secondary coverage for us to bother covering here. Marquardtika (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:CORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. Lots of passing mentions for LoanMart Field, but I don't think a redirect would be appropriate since stadium's article doesn't provide much information on the company. — Newslinger talk 04:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added additional sources from Wall Street Journal, California Department of Business Oversight and HighReview. Cofeebk23 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources cited in article:
1. Bloomberg: Doesn't provide significant coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH). Directory listing.
2. Tireball: Not significant.
3. ABL Advisor: Not significant. Capital transaction announcement.
4. HighBeam (open access link): ~~Undetermined. I don't have access to the paywalled article.~~ Not significant. Passing mention.
5. Wall Street Journal: Not significant. Capital transaction announcement.
6. PRWeek: Borderline. Doesn't give any information about LoanMart's core business, other than that the company "defines itself as a non-traditional lending company" who paid Hulk Hogan to sponsor an ad about "giving people a second chance with their finances".
7. Forbes.com: Not reliable or significant. Passing mention in contributor article.
8. CNNMoney: Not significant. Passing mention.
9. Forbes.com Not reliable or significant. Passing mention in contributor article.
10. Minor League Baseball: Not independent or significant. Partnership announcement.
11. SportsPro: Not significant. Partnership announcement.
12. SportsPro: Not significant. Partnership announcement.
13. Minor League Baseball: Not independent or significant. Partnership announcement.
14. Los Angeles Times: Not significant. Passing mention.
15. California Department of Business Oversight: Not independent. Primary sources can't be used to establish notability. Legal document.
16. California Department of Business Oversight: Not independent. Primary source. Legal document.
17. SFGate: Not significant. HARO-style passing mention.

Sources outside of the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 15:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some of these sources should be removed/cleaned up; however, The California Department of Business Oversight is a Government Organization that monitors financial institutions in California. It is 100% independent. - The WSJ article on the $100M credit facility from Victory Park Capital and piece on naming rights for LoanMart Field show this company as notable.

There are valid independent sources and the article should be improved upon, not deleted. Cofeebk23 (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legal documents (including the 2 PDFs from the California Department of Business Oversight) are primary sources and are not considered independent, especially for the purpose of evaluating notability. The Wall Street Journal writeup is specifically excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH as an example of "trivial coverage", since it is a brief announcement of a capital transaction. — Newslinger talk 23:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, these sources don't have to be removed from the article. They just don't count toward the 2 sources required for the company to satisfy the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for corporations. — Newslinger talk 04:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good analysis by Newslinger above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, with thanks to Newslinger for organizing the refs. WP:REFSPAM is the issue here; unless an independent, in-depth source provides a information about LoanMart that can be construed as passing NCORP, then the article has not reason for inclusion on Wikipedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 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.