Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convoy Financial Services


 * 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. After sources were presented, the only delete !vote acknowledges the subject as notable but argues for deletion anyway. However, unless this were a case of WP:CANTFIX, which it isn't, WP:IMPERFECT does not argue for deletion but fixing through editing. Until someone can do it, WP:STUBIFY might be applicable.  So Why  10:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Convoy Financial Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I declined this PROD because the tag was removed and then replaced. Nonetheless, this appears not to have any indication of notability. I cannot find anything substantive in news sources. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see no EV 02:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, just another business not unlike scores of others.Atsme 📞📧 00:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Subject is lacking in in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Non-notable, and promotional. DaveApter (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The extensive article is an exposé of Convoy Financial Services' allegedly deceiving consumers and violating the law. From Google Translate: "Internet science and technology expert Xiao Sa accepted the Beijing Times reporter interviewed, Convoy as a financial intermediary company, whether to take legal responsibility need to pay attention to the flow of investor funds. 'If the investor and Convoy signed a tripartite investment agreement, the investor's money is directly into the fund company, then Convoy is not suspected of violation, if the investor's money directly into the Hong Kong financial, then Convoy Financial may involve funds Precipitation, this way, Convoy is likely to bear legal responsibility. Xiao Sa pointed out that from another point of view, if Convoy in the product promotion process exists to conceal the truth, false statements, or induce consumers to buy and other acts, then Convoy also suspected of breaking the law. In this regard, investors can sign through the investment contract and the occurrence of overdue Convoy after the practice of evidence. In addition, if the company has publicly stated on the site that the preservation of interest, according to the relevant judicial interpretation, will bear joint and several liability." The article also provides detailed information about the company itself: "Data show that Convoy Financial was established in 1993, the current major members include Convoy Financial Services Limited, Convoy Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Convoy Securities Investment Services Limited. In February 2013, Hong Kong announced the success of CEPA (Mainland and Hong Kong on the establishment of closer economic and trade relations arrangements) to obtain a national insurance agency license, became the first in Hong Kong issued the relevant license of Hong Kong enterprises. And as early as September 2011, Convoy Financial in Beijing opened the first third-party financial center Convoy investment. After two years, Convoy Financial in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Jiangxi, Chengdu, Nanjing and other provinces and cities have set up branch offices. ... Convoy Financial's annual revenue for 2015 was HK $ 605 million, down 62% from 2014. At the end of 2014, Convoy's financial net profit of HK $ 246 million, net profit at the end of 2015 -4.67 billion Hong Kong dollars."  This extensively researched article is a second exposé of Convoy Financial's business and legal troubles. From Google Translate notes: "Hong Kong stocks listed company Convoy Financial (01019.HK) is currently in crisis. By its Beijing Convoy, Convoy Bi and other mainland subsidiaries consignment of Peking University, and many other financial products, there are still unable to pay the situation, some products have been overdue for more than a year. As the first mainland in China issued a national insurance agent license of Hong Kong enterprises, Convoy Financial insurance agent in the Mainland harvest a large number of high-quality customers. But some of its non-fund sales qualification of the branch, but the use of the hands of the insurance customer resources, illegal referral fund products. In the customer signing process, not only the absence of fund companies, Convoy also accused of concealing the wind control measures related to the project. And in the relevant partner has been a redemption issue, Convoy is still promoting its products. At present, the amount of financing and capitalization of the project is still unknown. However, some of the project's responsibility has been detained by the police, the project has also entered the judicial process."   </li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Convoy Financial Services to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Convoy Financial Services (康宏金融) is listed on Hong Kong Stock Exchange. There are few English language sources about the company. But there are numerous Chinese language sources about it. From Notability (organizations and companies): "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." The critical coverage Convoy Financial Services received from Xinhuanet and NetEase, as well as the analyst reports and articles in other sources like Wen Wei Po, Apple Daily, and Headline Daily, establish notability. Any promotional issues can be resolved through normal editing instead of deletion per Editing policy. Pinging the editor who removed the prod: .  Cunard (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep the prod removal was procedural but as this was a publicly traded company and Cunard has identified reliable sources it passes WP:GNG but it needs to be improved so that the controversies over its practices are documented and available to readers. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
 * Question Cunardh as found sources, but I cannot tell if the bear on notability because I can not decipher the Google translation any more than I could the original Chinese.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. has shown that a proper article could be written, andI think he should write one based on the good sources he found. Not all dishonest businesses are notable, but this one seems to be. But the first step is removing this.  Cunard,  you've already done the work of finding the sources. Now write the article.  DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for conceding this business is notable. This article lacks the negative information but that is because it was created in 2010 and the negative articles were published in 2016. The article just needs to be updated, not completely deleted. I cannot agree that "the first step is removing this". Editing policy. I wish I had the time to both find sources and rewrite every article at every AfD I participate in. But I do not. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2017 (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.