Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branch Insurance


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Branch Insurance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An overly promotional article with no evidence of notability. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP in any way. I don't see how this passed the afc process to begin with. Page creator's keen edits also give the impression they might have been paid or are expected to be paid to promote the subject. ZXVZ (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've answered this on my own talk page, but I feel it's worth addressing here too: I have no relationship, financial or otherwise, with any insurance company or any company that does business with any insurance companies. As I mentioned a few moments ago on my own talk page, I don't want to provide information that would make my identity potentially ascertainable, but I have a personal academic interest in insurance / technology and the crossover between the two. After many years of benefiting from Wikipedia's content I made the decision to try my hand at editing, because I have this personal passion/interest in an area where it didn't seem there was much editing going on. I've made improvements/edits to pages of competitors of Branch Insurance, and have the early stages of a draft underway of another one of its competitors. I also raised a question about one of Branch Insurance's competitors' "notability" flags, where I hoped to remove that article's notability flag too. Whatever happens to the Branch Insurance page, I hope that I will be able to continue editing these kinds of pages without continued questions about conflict of interest, although I understand where they come from. Perhaps I will put a clear non-COI statement on my own user page, so that it's highly visible to anyone who visits. Thanks for taking the time to hear this.InsuranceLovers (talk)
 * This is simply not true. For someone with a personal academic interest in insurance, I don't see the likelihood of them going to Reciprocal inter-insurance exchange and placing a backlink and mention to Branch Insurance out of nowhere. They get reverted by an admin and still place their edits back. Also, your claim of contributing to competing insurance companies is definitely well understood. We have seen paid editor over and over trying to cover up their paid editing contributions by being diligent in editing other pages they have no relationship with. The fact you have outspoken it and it appearing in your arguments everywhere makes it probable you may very well have done that on purpose. ZXVZ (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about three separate, but related aspects of your behavior. First, you have misrepresented my own history of contributions. (1) I never reverted the reversion of my addition of an external link. After my addition of the external link was reverted by Kuro, and (s)he informed me that external links were not permitted, I never added it back. I did add a link to the blank Branch Insurance page, but never the external link. (2) You have reverted value-added additions I have made to multiple articles (Kin Insurance, Reciprocal Insurance Inter-exchange), including the simple addition of references. Those changes did nothing but add to the value of those articles, and you reverted them without comment or reason. (3) You have stated that it's "simply not true" that I don't have a conflict of interest, (a) without sufficient evidence to allow you to have confidence to state that unequivocally and (b) incorrectly. I can go into the history of how I ended up beginning to edit, but I don't think it will satisfy you. I was reading the book "The Invisible Bankers," which is a book about insurance. It contains a section about the difference between mutual and non-mutual insurance companies. This caused me to learn more about the financial structure of insurance companies, including reciprocal exchanges. This led me to research the recent resurgence of companies using the reciprocal exchange structure. I really just wanted to get involved in editing wikipedia, and didn't expect this level of scrutiny. I'm not saying I don't understand it--I do. But I would like to know if there is a path forward here, or whether my edits will always be dogged by unexplained reversions, and, indirect claims that I'm a liar.InsuranceLovers (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC).
 * ZXVZ, I want to apologize and will see myself out. I don't want to get into the game of confrontation and accusations. I had really just wanted to indulge myself with a new hobby and feel like I was making a contribution in an area I was interested. But looking back at my contribution history from the perspective of a third party who doesn't know me, I totally understand where you're coming from and don't know that I can really question your conduct. (I asked my husband to look at my user history without him knowing it was mine, and look at this discussion, and see what he thought. He said that your perspective on this totally make sense. And I see that now.) I think, given how things got started, it's best I respectfully take a few steps back. I want to continue to contribute, but it's apparent that I began to do that without the proper understanding of Wikipedia policies or culture. I'm going to refrain from editing any of the pages I've edited so far, with the hope that I can come back after doing some studying and contribute to other pages in the same area. Does this sound reasonable? InsuranceLovers (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC). Edited to add: I would flat out-delete the content in the section above this one as it contains some argumentation that I would rather have not made in retrospect, but I believe that on these AfD pages we're not supposed to delete content. If it's permissible to delete it I'll do so. InsuranceLovers (talk) 2 January 2021 (UTC).
 * I hope you stay. Wikipedia can be a fun hobby and the editors I think do see a lot of people self promoting so they have to be careful Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. It really feels like a minefield and I feel like I've stepped on several. I was really hoping it would be a fun hobby that would allow me to feel productive, but so far it has been really stressful (something I never anticipated)! I'm going to hang around, taking a less active role but looking more closely at the way the policies are interpreted and enforced, hoping that I can get to a point where my contributions aren't controversial and therefore some of the stress abates. Thanks again for your message. InsuranceLovers (talk) 15 January 2021 (UTC).
 * I do want to add back one important point in the text I had struck through: I never re-added any external link that had been removed. The series of events was: (1) I added an external link. (2) It was removed by someone else. (3) I added an internal reference to the Branch Insurance page. It's important to me that people realize that it's not true that I "placed back" any external link that was added by an admin.InsuranceLovers (talk) 3 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - a fair amount of routine coverage, but not enough significant coverage to meet WP:NCORP. signed,Rosguill talk 18:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - This passed the AfC process because it meets the criteria in order to be published. The article in no way reads like a promotional one. The page creator has clearly said they are not paid. Coverage is adequate enough to provide a well-sourced article where all information is backed up by references. Absolutely no reason at all to delete this as it harms no-one but has benefited 220+ people as of yet. Eyebeller (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I know that as the article's author, I have a vested interest in the article not being deleted, and it's probably also clear that I support it being kept. But I would like to at least contribute my view on this: Insurance is not a topic that garners tremendous coverage in mainstream press, in part because it's viewed by many (though not me!) as mundane and boring. I do not believe that means it is a not a notable or important topic. I believe that if the community rigidly and without judgment applies the same standards to companies of all industries, that will lead to undercoverage of some important topics (including insurance). Imagine there are two companies: Company A, an insurance company, and Company B, a car company. Those companies, with the same level of innovation, market share, and impact on their communities, will see dramatically different coverage in the mainstream press. By strict standards of WP:NCORP, Company A might not pass review, while Company B might. This is simply to say that there are underlying reasons, unrelated to true notability, why some companies in some industries get substantially more coverage, earlier in their existence, than companies in other industries. In the case of Branch and other companies in the insurance space, it takes far more than 'notability' to garner coverage in non-trade or national publications -- it takes something closer to being one of the the absolute largest behemoths in the industry. I don't take the purpose of the notability guidelines to be to sort out all corporations in an industry other than those with the absolute greatest prominence and/or those that are the handful of largest ones in the nation. Strictly and rigidly applying WP:NCORP to insurance companies would have that effect. I also disagree with the judgment that the article is overly promotional or promotional at all, but I don't take that to be the central challenge to the approval of the article, so I won't address that directly or thoroughly. If you believe I should, I can do that. InsuranceLovers (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Added: For what it's worth, the sources on this page include others than just trade publications from within the insurance industry. The references include coverage from general media, general business media, as well as coverage from the technology side, finance and government (Tech Ohio is a State of Ohio government source).InsuranceLovers (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC) To clarify, I believe all of these sources together add up to the requisite substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. My commentary was supporting the theory that in an industry such as insurance, companies in industries such as insurance are at risk of perceived non-notability when the guidelines are applied in a rigid, strict way without consideration of complete context. My theory was not "this isn't notable but that's okay." Instead, "this is notable but here's a reason it might not appear that way." InsuranceLovers (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It probably meets GNG but by my experience of CORP AfD discussions I think this probably doesn’t quite meet NCORP’s standards. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP.  Sources do not satisfy the WP:GNG.  For example, the first four references:
 * 1. http://www.emagazine.itapro.org/Home/Article/Electronic-Chat-with-Steve-Lekas-Branch-Insurance/3280 It is an interview; all information comes from the cofounder and CEO, therefore is not independent and does not meet the WP:GNG
 * 2. https://iireporter.com/branch-uses-clarion-door-technology-to-launch-bundled-personal-insurance/ "Branch Uses ClarionDoor Technology to Launch Bundled Personal Insurance" means this is a promotional, product launch statement from the company.  The information comes quoted from employees.  Therefore is not independent and does not meet the WP:GNG.
 * 3. https://weare.techohio.ohio.gov/2020/10/21/rapidly-growing-branch-insurance-is-on-a-mission-to-lower-insurance-costs/  The title is a promotional pitch.  The content is based on company quotations.  Therefore is not independent and does not meet the WP:GNG.
 * 4. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/unemployment-ripples/  Fails the "Significant coverage" part of the WP:GNG.  It merely mentions the topic Author = Jason Metz, seems independent enough, but it covers SafetyNest with non-independent information and does not cover the article topic of Branch.
 * Does WP:CORP aka NCORP have higher standards? It has tougher language, but the real problem is that self-promoting corporations create a lot of these publications that, on close examination, do not meet the WP:GNG.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Coverage is adequate enough to provide a well-sourced article where all information is backed up by references.  Eyebeller  18:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a “It’s WP:Verifiable” claim. If that’s the best, it is headed to a WP:NOTDIRECTORY fail, Wikipedia would collect everything verifiable.  That is not Wikipedia’s mission. The explanation is badly worded, but the explanation is at WP:N and WP:CORP. “all information is backed up by references” is not good enough. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, The article passed through AFC, and has plenty of sourcing. One of the criteria for approving an AFC is that it would most likely survive at an AFD.- Kieran207  talk  01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The majority of the sources are trivial per WP:ORGDEPTH ~RAM (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining how the majority of sources are trivial? I'm looking at the WP:ORGDEPTH list of examples of non-substantial coverage, like simple listings, standard notices, etc. and don't see how the majority of those fit any of those criteria. Thanks. InsuranceLovers (talk) 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any opinion as yet about the disposition of this article, but must point out that whether this was accepted or not at WP:AFC is irrelevant to the issue of deletion. Just about anyone may accept or deny an AfC submission. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is untrue. People go through an application process to review AfC submissions.  Eyebeller  14:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But that is a very light-weight process that does not determine that the people who undergo it it have such god-like powers as to determine that an article should not be subject to the AfD process. Discuss deletion of this article on its merits, not on the basis that acceptance at AfC is final. And people might be more inclined to believe what you write if you were up-front about the fact that you were the one who accepted this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draftify as per ATD. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc, so "articles" which simply parrot a company announcement without adding independent opinion or analysis fails ORGIND. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Also, the excuse that it passes AfC is not a good reason to Keep as I see a lot of articles get approved from AfC where the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. I've no issues with the article being Draftified is the author is confident references can be found although my search has yielded nothing. As it stands, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this is non-notable corporate spam. Being accepted by a newbie afcer isn't a requirement for WP:N and this fails WP:NCORP by a large margin. GRINCHIDICAE🎄  00:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NCORP is passed.  Eyebeller  11:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you out any substance to that? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Passed AfC" is irrelevant once at AfD. The AfC pass standard is supposed to be a 50% chance of surviving AfD if nominated.  There is an issue with most AfC reviewers being over-cautious, as if considering it shameful to have something deleted that they accepted, but that is not the design.  AfC is for plausible quick approval.  AfD is for a thorough analysis.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is wrong, AfC is thorough analysis.  Eyebeller  11:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AfC was a single persons review, yours, and you make poor assessment of WP:CORP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not.  Eyebeller  18:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That comment contributes nothing to this debate. Just start discussing on the basis of guidelines and policies, not that you have been given the power of deciding whether an article should even go to AfD. You have not. It's no good repeating the mantra that this passes WP:NCORP if you don't provide reasons why it passes. At the moment it looks very much like you obtained the AfC right in order to accept a promotional article. If that is the case then the right should be withdrawn. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t participate in AfC.  Eyebeller  20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now . Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Eyebeller has since stated that they no longer intend to participate in AfC and they have been removed from the participant list. I think it's clear that Eyebeller is not going to substantiate their arguments, and there's very little else to be accomplished from this subthread. signed,Rosguill talk 21:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is my first time reading through lots of AfD. I cant judge whether the person is paid. But I think companies should be judged on $ or employee #s or ideas buildings. Linkedin shows about 60 employees, But many are interns  the rating site they refer to on their web site shows 100 K of premiums.  http://www.demotech.com/search_results_fsr.aspx?id=16825&t=2  They refer to Crunch base shows 2 people and 24 Million of funding- https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/branch-financial. They have a single rented office. They seem to have started 6 months ago, but they have three different start dates going back to 2017 Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that this changes much about your analysis, but I think the "seem to have started 6 months ago" is confusing their reciprocal inter-exchange (the weird company structure that brought me to wikipedia to research, and led me to do my first edit) launch this year versus the launch of the company. I think the naming choice, where their inter-insurance reciprocal exchange shares part of the company name, leads quite naturally to this kind of confusion. I'm betting you saw something like this from 2020 -- this is about a sub-entity of the company. InsuranceLovers (talk) 15 January 2021 (UTC).
 * The company structure is very very unusual. I am not sure who does this stuff for them, but it's quite awesome. Going through the google reviews they seem to have mostly been added at the same time.Looking through linked in. some of the staff with American sounding names seemed to have had careers in India then moved to America, The facebook page seemed to belong to a Sarah Branch, and then the facebook page was renamed.    Colour me impressed Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The Insuance Journal says they formerly operated as a managing-general agency, which isn't notable. Nothing to suggest notability at this time. They don't even rank on the Ohio Dept. of Insurance 2020 Annual Report, which tells us they are very small. https://insurance.ohio.gov/static/AboutODI/AR/Documents/2020AnnualReport.pdf Lots of fluff, but they aren't a big enough player in the industry to warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think relisting was unnecessary for this discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 21:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I declined this as a draft back in December as not meeting our notability guidelines, despite much editing in the meantime it still seems to fail WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.