User talk:Salimfadhley/Archives/2022/February

Rejection of B. Riley Financial
Hello Salimfadhley,

Two weeks ago, I posted a response at the Help Desk about your rejection of my submission for Draft:B. Riley Financial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_November_29#23:49:35.2C_29_November_2021_review_of_draft_by_WalksInWelcome

Unfortunately, no one has replied, so I thought I might ask you directly. (For your conference, I also posted the above response on B. Riley's Talk page.) Thank you very much.

WalksInWelcome (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi @WalksInWelcome, this draft was rejected because it did not seem to meet our standards for an article about a company. We need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in order to show that a company is notable. Notability can only be shown in this way. We cannot use government documents (e.g. SEC), sources which are mainly interviews or documents from sources that are not independent of the subject.
 * Also the criteria of "significant coverage" also excludes "routine announcements" e.g. articles which consist of little more than X company to buy Y company. These are not significant.
 * I noticed that some of the sources on the draft fail this criteria. It may be that this subject meets our notability criteria, but this has not yet been demonstrated in the draft. My suggestion would be to eliminate the inappropriate sources and see if you can make a more presentable article based on what remains. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your speedy reply and explanation. WalksInWelcome (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Salim,


 * Thank you again for your willingness to work with me on this. B. Riley and I are committed to fulfilling Wikipedia's rules about notability and to embracing feedback from experts such as yourself.


 * On 12/13/21, you suggested that I remove some of the less-notable sources in the draft. I’ve done that, and I’m including both the revised text and specific explanations below. What do you think?


 * 1. Routine Announcements
 * You’re right that the page relies too much on “routine announcements.” Would removing the following four items remedy this issue?


 * a. B. Riley Financial is ... known for ... investment banking.


 * b. In 2015, B. Riley bought MK Capital Advisors, a wealth management firm.


 * c. In 2017, the company acquired ... Wunderlich Securities, a regional brokerage firm.


 * d. The combined company was renamed B. Riley Financial, and Great American Group became an operating subsidiary of B. Riley.


 * We can also change footnote #22 (“B. Riley, Great American Close Merger”), which is a routine announcement, to footnote #24 (“Reversed Course”), which is a profile.


 * 2. Interviews
 * The page cites one interview (a TV segment on CNBC; footnote #6) to support the claim that B. Riley is “known for investing in small cap companies.”


 * I propose replacing this interview with a news article from the Los Angeles Business Journal, “Small Caps Boost B. Riley's Growth.”


 * 3. Sources That Aren’t Independent
 * The page cites two press releases:


 * a. To document the name change to “B. Riley Financial (footnote #23).


 * b. To document that B. Riley began trading on the Nasdaq (footnote #25).


 * Per above, I’ve removed footnote #23.


 * As for footnote #25, I propose replacing this with a news article from the Los Angeles Business Journal, “B. Riley Jumps to Nasdaq.” Alternatively, we can remove the fact that B. Riley is publicly traded.


 * 4. Government Documents
 * The 3 links to the Securities and Exchange Commission (footnotes #3-#5) pertain only to revenue and net income. Citing the SEC seems to be standard practice for such metrics (see, for example, Lazard and Bank of America). In fact, many pages employ a lower standard — news releases from the company in question; see Microsoft and Goldman Sachs.


 * If government documents are nonetheless problematic per se, then let’s remove those footnotes and the numbers they support.




 * For your convenience, I’m including the revised draft below.

B. Riley Financial is an American financial services company, known for investing in small cap companies and retail liquidation.
 * It is definitely not cool to post an entire conversation into somebody's talk page. Please do not do this again. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

WP:NFOOTY
Hi. Please see WP:NFOOTY, point 1 for players in international matches. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)