Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdvanSix


 * 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. A clear consensus to keep is formed after the discussion was relisted. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

AdvanSix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The company does not seem notable for anything. Routers is the only reliable source, but the companies coverage in their article isn't substantial. It seems like the other articles are just about stock prices or financial releases. Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company was spun off of Honeywell in 2016, according to Forbes. When the Feds dropped an investigation of the company in 2019, Yahoo Finance thought it deserved a full length story. Colin Gerhard (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed you put the Plastic News citation in the article about them closing the plant in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. So can you also get rid of the reference to it as currently being operational in the second paragraph? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Colin, and that isn't the only news coverage I've managed to find of them. They apparently got an eco-friendly award that was also covered in Yahoo news, among other sources. That's not notable in and of itself, I don't think, but the company is definitely getting independent coverage. The article could certainly use improvement, but I don't see any good reason to delete it altogether. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Yahoo "News article" is just a company press release from business wire. In no way is that is independent coverage. You and Colin really should have checked it before citing it. As far as forbes article goes, a company being split is kind of blah. Its not notable IMO because otherwise your making it a notability by association thing. Which isn't how Wikipedia works. Also, the Forbes "article" (more like a blog post. Which they do have) is by a guest author and doesn't represent their views. So that's blah also and again, should have been checked before citing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, there's also already established consensus here that Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. Even the company says they don't represent their views. So please check the sources before posting them next time. Otherwise, we just end up keeping a none notable article. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This subject gets thousands of stories on Google news. Here is one in Plastics News: "AdvanSix halts nylon film making in Pennsylvania, cutting 85 jobs." It tells us that, "AdvanSix ranks as one of the world's largest makers of nylon 6. The firm posted sales of just over $1.5 billion in 2018." Check out our nylon 6 article. I see the problem with the Yahoo Finance story now. As for the Forbes article, WP:RSP is, you know, a Wikipedia page that anyone can edit. At most, the opinions expressed there are the "consensus" of a discussion that might have involved three or four people. Forbes remains a widely-used source for business information. Contributors can certainly have opinions that do not represent Forbes. But an editor decided that this subject was notable enough to run a story about it. I am not aware of any general rule that says spinoffs are not notable. It obviously depends on the coverage and significance of the spinoff in question. Colin Gerhard (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, see Google Test. "Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy." I'm sure you'll blow that off though because anyone can edit it. Anyway, how many of those articles in Google News are actually usable? The vast majority are stock price "articles." In other words, complete trash. So maybe there's a few that are usable if you sift through them, but that's not the argument your making anyway. I don't care if there's the possibility there might be reliable sources at some point in the future if we look hard enough for them because Google News give thousands of results. I care if we have them now, and we don't. As far as the Forbes thing goes, it wasn't three or four people. It was 11 discussions involving multiple people every time. Even if it was just 3 or 4 or in each, and it wasn't, that would still be 30 or 40 people. Which is ten times more then decides on if an article gets deleted here. If you think the opinions of 4 or 40 people isn't consensus enough, then I see zero reason your even involved in this. Ultimately I don't care what Forbes editors think, I care what precedence on Wikipedia is and it's clear the precedence is against us using contributors to Forbes as sources. If you have an issue with it, feel free to take it up in the proper channels. This isn't the right place to argue about it though. As it's not on me. Btw, all the information from your Plastic News source is either credited to either an earnings release, "Market sources" (whatever that means), or a blog post. Your really reaching if you think those things are at all reliable. My guess is that most of the Google News results you think we keep the article over are much of the same. Earnings amount and them being a top company in their industry doesn't matter if there's no reliable sources about them. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you no shame? Here is the relevant discussion about Forbes. It was literally three editors who made this decision. Colin Gerhard (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Christ Colin, your only citing one discussion when I said there where 11. Go to the actual article I cited here instead of nick picking a single discussion. See the 11 next to the red circle with the line through it? That's how many discussions there have been about it. If you hover the n in brackets next to the 11 there's links to all the discussions. Which should have been obvious since that's how many discussions I said there were. If you can't be bothered to even check a simple thing like that before you attack someone and are that miss-trusting of what other people tell you, you really shouldn't be doing this. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The complaint made about Forbes contributors on Reliable sources/Noticeboard is that they are mere bloggers. But Joe Cornell edits a subscription newsletter, so I don't think he comes under that umbrella. He seems to be a "spin off specialist" and has written a long list of articles for Forbes on various spin offs. To summarize, here are the stories an AdvanSix artcle could be based on:
 * delete Nothing speaking to their notability has materialized since the first time the AfD was listed and I doubt anything will. None of the sources provided have been reliable and the person still defending them has resorted to personal attacks instead of looking for more. So, there's zero reason this article should exist IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cornell, Joe, "Digging Into Honeywell's AdvanSix Spinoff," Forbes, Jun 3, 2016.
 * "AdvanSix Awarded 2020 Gold Rating for Corporate Social Responsibility From EcoVadis", Associated Press, Jan 30, 2020.
 * "Honeywell plans spin-off of resins business with Richmond-area operations," Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 12, 2016. RTD is the local paper for the company's main base of operations.
 * "State and federal authorities converge on Hopewell chemical plant as part of undisclosed investigation," Richmond Times-Dispatch
 * Esposito, Frank, "AdvanSix helps firefighters in Virginia", Plastics News, May 15, 2019
 * "AdvanSix halts nylon film making in Pennsylvania, cutting 85 jobs," Plastics News, May 15, 2019.
 * "Nearly 100 People Out of Work as Plant Near Pottsville Closes its Doors", WNEP, May 3, 2019.
 * "AdvanSix Expands Operations at Hopewell, Virginia, Plant", Area Development, May 31, 2019. Colin Gerhard (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we seriously going to go through this again? I can't speak to the Richmond articles because they paywalled or something, but Forbes is already out. So get over it. As far as the other two, your AP Press article citation is yet again another company press release from the Business Wire. Whereas, the Plastic News one says "AdvanSix's plant in Hopewell helped purchase two intercom headset systems to improve safety and responses to an emergency. The equipment — valued at $5,000 — will to assist and improve communication for firefighters onboard a fire engine" and that's pretty much it. It should be pretty clear why a plant buying two intercoms for a fire department isn't notable. Neither is them firing people. Every business does that. Or them wining an award (see the corporation notability guidelines). Again, is it that freakin hard to check your citations? At this point it seems like your intentionally trying to pass off bad articles just to get your way. Which is the clearly the reason your unwilling to accept the consensus on the Forbes thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. From Notability (organizations and companies) (my bolding): "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability." Analyst reports  This 23 June 2017 articleInternet Archive from The Fly notes: "Cowen analyst Charles Neivert initiated AdvanSix (ASIX) with an Outperform and a $37 price target saying the ultimate earnings power and likely multiple expansion are underappreciated by investors. The analyst said after the spinoff from Honeywell (HON), AdvanSix will be able to optimize resources and expand earnings through product improvement and eventually acquisitions." This 6 February 2019 articleInternet Archive from The Fly notes: "As reported previously, Cowen analyst Charles Neivert downgraded AdvanSix to Market Perform from Outperform. The analyst said recent subtle changes in industry fundamentals and the macro outlook have made him more cautious. He believes margin pressure will be present throughout most of 2019 based on headwinds from feedstocks, capacity, and a weakening macro versus consensus. Neivert maintained his $33 price target on AdvanSix shares." This 26 June 2019 articleInternet Archive from The Fly notes: "Stifel analyst Vincent Anderson maintained a Buy rating on AdvanSix after the mayor of Philadelphia confirmed an earlier Reuters report that PES intends to permanently close its refinery following the recent plant explosion and fire. In a research note to investors, Anderson, who believes shares of AdvanSix are weak due to the probability that the refinery will go through with the closure, says he does not expect clarity from management for some time, but thinks his estimates should limit downside risk in shares to $2-$4. He says that while it is likely that the increased cost will drive a negative revision to estimates, he continues to view AdvanSix shares as undervalued and with an improving earnings profile in 2020." This 10 December 2018 articleInternet Archive from The Fly notes: "Stifel analyst Vincent Anderson initiated AdvanSix with a Buy rating and a price target of $38. The analyst cites the company's position as a low-cost vertically integrated producer of caprolactam with unique asset base. Anderson also notes that AdvanSix is leveraged to a strong North America Ag market through specialty nitrogen fertilizer with a conservative balance sheet." 

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/ASIX/price-target/?MostRecent=0Internet Archive contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AdvanSix to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)</ul>
 * The analyst reports from Cowen Inc., CL King, and Stifel Nicolaus are sufficient to establish notability per Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC
 * While I have zero issue with analysts reports, because like you said they are usually citable, I would consider an article by one that amounts to a simple statement of "I'm changing my sell rating to a buy" as not meeting the whole "in-depth coverage" standard or the rules about neutrality. WP:NOCORP specifically says the source has to have significant coverage. It can't be trivial or temporary opinion (which don't meet neutral POV). As stock price fluctuations or buy/sell recommendations are and are not neutral. A person writing an article being an "analyst" doesn't circumvent those things. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for reliable sources to be neutral. Analyst reports never have "a simple statement of 'I'm changing my sell rating to a buy'" because that would not be useful to the investors who purchase and read them to guide their investment decisions. Analyst reports always have in-depth analysis of why an analyst is making a recommendation. For example, The Fly article about the Stifel Nicolaus analysis said, "The analyst cites the company's position as a low-cost vertically integrated producer of caprolactam with unique asset base. Anderson also notes that AdvanSix is leveraged to a strong North America Ag market through specialty nitrogen fertilizer with a conservative balance sheet." This is a two-sentence summary of the analyst's conclusions which are much more in-depth. Here is a sample analyst report of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. from Morningstar. It contains a discussion of the risks the company faces, a financial overview, and a company overview which are all encylopedic information. Analyst reports follow this standard format. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What? Since when does the neutrality of the article or it's author not matter? We can't use articles written by Forbes contributors exactly for that reason and there's a whole list of other none usable just because of their low neutrality. So I have zero clue what your talking about. Things like "the company's position as a low-cost vertically integrated producer of caprolactam with unique asset base" that you cite are essentially just buzzwordy advertisements for the company, and totally not acceptable as encyclopedic content. Know one cares about what their "unique asset base". Let alone how "low-cost vertically integrated" they are, or that they have a "conservative balance sheet." Most people wouldn't even know what those things mean. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise or to say neutrality doesn't matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From Reliable sources, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." All analyst reports are non-neutral sources because their authors advance a viewpoint about the company's performance and support that viewpoint with evidence and analysis. Analyst reports are reliable sources that establish notability because they provide detailed analysis of the company, are independent of the subject, and are published by reputable firms. This is why Notability (organizations and companies) says about sources that establish notability for public companies: "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Cunard (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work for investment firms though. They are't random analysts and the guidelines for companies are much higher then the GNG anyway. Most importantly here is Notability (organizations and companies) "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject", " the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose." https://investors.advansix.com/financial-releases/2019/09-04-2019-133025959 and https://www.cowen.com/capabilities/investment-management/ - COWEN HEALTHCARE INVESTMENTS. So neutrality does matter when your talking about something put out by companies that have something to gain from the company the article is about. They aren't just random, financial analyst's that are working independently on behalf of a news organization. I'd also cite Examples of trivial coverage which includes changes in share or bond prices, quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts, expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, capital transaction, such as raised capital. Which is exactly what the analyst reports you cited cover even if it's put in their own words. I'd also say that an "in-depth analysis of the subject", as you put it, is original research. Although in this case since the companies writing the articles are invested in the company it's more like "just say whatever makes the stock price go up." --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding "I'd also say that an 'in-depth analysis of the subject', as you put it, is original research.", No original research says that Wikipedia editors cannot engage in original research about a topic. It does not prohibit Wikipedia editors from basing content on independent reliable sources such as analyst reports (or books, studies published in academic journals, and newspaper articles) that engage in original research. I do not consider an AdvanSix presentation at a CL King conference to disqualify a CL King analyst report from being independent. I do not consider Cowen Inc. having a healthcare fund that may or may not have AdvanSix in it to disqualify a Cowen Inc. analyst report from being independent. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (which is regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) published a page titled "Research Analyst Rules". The page notes: "The aim of FINRA's equity and debt research analyst and research report rules is to foster objectivity and transparency in research reports and public appearances and provide investors with more reliable and useful information to make investment decisions. In general, FINRA's equity and debt research rules require clear, comprehensive and prominent disclosure of conflicts of /interest in research reports and public appearances by research analysts. The rules further prohibit certain conduct where the conflicts are considered too pronounced to be cured by disclosure. Several of the equity research rules' provisions implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ('Sarbanes-Oxley'), which mandates separation between research and investment banking, proscribes conduct that could compromise a research analyst's objectivity and requires specific disclosures in research reports and public appearances. FINRA's equity research rules also conform to the JOBS Act (The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act) of 2012." The page further notes: "This rule governs conflicts of interest in connection with the publication of equity research reports and public appearances by research analysts. The rule requires firms to establish and implement policies and procedures to identify and manage research-related conflicts of interest. Among other things, the policies must separate research from investment banking with respect to supervision of research analysts, budget determinations and compensation of analysts. The rule further prohibits promises of favorable research and analyst participation in solicitation of investment banking business and road shows.  The rule also requires disclosure of investment banking and other material conflicts of interest, such as personal and firm ownership of a subject company's securities." CL King is regulated by FINRA according to this page as are Cowen Inc. (link) and Stifel Nicolaus (link). The analyst reports are independent because a company's "policies must separate research from investment banking with respect to supervision of research analysts, budget determinations and compensation of analysts" and because policies must "mandat[e] separation between research and investment banking, proscrib[e] conduct that could compromise a research analyst's objectivity and requir[e] specific disclosures in research reports and public appearances". Cunard (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ironically, the sources given by Adamant1 all clearly demonstrate the company's notability. This should be a keep. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep This company has a revenue of $1.4 billion and was formerly part of the Honeywell. Absolutely meets WP:NCORP. It shouldn't even be here at AFD, so keep right away. This almost looks like a bad-faith attempt at trying to take down a competitor. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hhhmmm, that's a really weird accusation to make and also obviously pretty baseless. If you think the article should be kept, cool. Your free to have your opinion, But maybe leave the attacks of other users out of it next time. Unless you have some actual evidence. That goes for if it's directed at me or anyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.