Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onset Financial

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onset Financial[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)

Subject does not meet general notability requirements and its only coverage is local. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would cite this companies local competition as reason to show it's notability Tetra Financial Group, Onset is larger than this company. This article is written in the same manner and the company covers the same area (United States) and is also located in Utah. If you read through the sources, the MonitorDaily articles are from across the country, which would make the coverage national not local. Since the company is based in Utah, it reasonable to assume that the bulk of the information about the company would be relating to where it is from. BMcElreath (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is little that meets the notability guidelines. Most of the coverage is simple puffery and rehashed press releases. For example: Onset Press release versus Monitor online. To me, if a source is just a conduit for the company ~~fees~~ feed, I would suggest that it is not independent, which also undermines the notability claim.

I could argue the the example of the other company you cite is also non-notable but slipped through the cracks. Besides Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a rationale to overcome a lack of notability on the primary subject.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 16:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned Sources can easily be removed. As this is my first Wikipedia article I was simply using the Tetra Financial Group article as reference since it had been published already, and they used similar articles as references. If those references are removed, what would be your argument for deletion? Below I have listed how the other sources meet requirements for notability on Wikipedia. BMcElreath (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should nominate Tetra Financial Group for deletion using the similar rationale used here. I think removing questionable references adds nothing to the article to support a claim of notability. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 16:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading more about notability at Wikipedia:Notability I have a few more arguments against deletion. While the Deseret News is a local source (Reference 12), it meets "Reliable", "Independent of the subject", "Sources", and "Presumed" requirements of notability. I would also argue that this source falls under "Significant coverage" as even though it is not the main topic of discussion it is more than a trivial mention since there were far more companies excluded from this this than are on it. The guidelines for Notability state, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Desert News article also references data from Glassdoor, a nationally recognized brand, in their results. Utah Business Magazine (Reference 13) is also a reputable local publication. Notability guidelines do not exclude local coverage nor do they require national or global coverage. Inc. (magazine) is a nationally recognized publication that meets Notability for the same previous arguments. Onset Financial is also the subject of dozens of articles in ELFA (Reference 2), the national recognized industry organization for equipment finance and leasing, and in MonitorDaily, which is known across the equipment lease and finance industry as a reputable and independent publication for industry news (References 2-10). EY Ernst & Young (Reference 17) is a globally recognized brand that recognized Onset Financial and their CEO's success at a regional level. With the information listed above and referencing the guidelines for Notability requirements I see no reason that the Onset Financial page should be deleted as it meets community guidelines and requirements. BMcElreath (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that ELFA is another source of recycled press releases Company press release versus ELFA therefore would likely fail as an independent source. Inc. certainly is a national outlet but just being on a list does not confer any notability nor does being the 63rd best place to work in Utah according to Glassdoor. Those are user generated reviews, not independent reliable sources. This would akin to naming a restaurant as notable because it got good Yelp ratings. In neither case is the company the subject of the coverage. At this point there is not a single item that comes from an independent source where this company is the subject of the coverage.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 16:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines from Wikipedia:Notability specifically state that the subject of the article "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" of a source for it to be notable. Even if we were to discount all of the sources you mentioned, there is still Utah Business Magazine which features Onset Financial as one of the fastest growing companies in Utah. I would argue that is both a reliable source and is "significant coverage" as it is more than a trivial mention. The example of a trivial mention for guidelines: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." This article uses company revenues, a quantifiable figure, to determine these rankings. Because it's based of numbers, I would argue that it is not simply being on a list, but it's proving notability by showing the growth of the company in comparison to others. Even if that is the only source listed that meets notability guidelines, notability guidelines do not have a minimum number of sources to determine notability. BMcElreath (talk) 17:21, 13 June 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.