Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. but CNMall41 is correct about Forbes, see WP:FORBESCON. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Country Financial

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable financial company. Forbes sourcing is simply earnings statements (how much money they've made) and listings. All I find is confirmation of existence and donations to charity. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: They're on the Fortune 1000 list of the largest companies. They have $3.9 billion in revenues. Unclear how Pokemon characters can be notable and they're not.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We need sourcing that talks about them at length. All I could find was confirmation they existed. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We had the Pokémon argument ten years ago and it's time to drop the stick. Notability is based off of WP:V and WP:GNG and this article doesn't reach either standard in its current state. MissingNo. is a featured article. That's how Pokémon characters can be notable and this might not be. casualdejekyll  21:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).
 * --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Based on the status of this company being in the Fortune 1000, I thought this should pass WP:CORP, but upon a quick glance this [] was the best I could find. There might be enough to pass the notability guidelines, but it may take some time to find usable sources. Let&#39;srun (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep(all links to Proquest)
 * GlobalData has multiple SWOT analysis reports on them . The methodology on the last page suggests the report does seem to be secondary/independent. This is one SIRS source.
 * World Market Intelligence has a "company capsule" report. 10 sparse pages, . I think this is still a SIRS source.
 * D&B Hoovers Has a report as well,, comparable depth to the above. Not sure on the methodology but given the creator should be reliable on the topic. Should qualify for SIRS.
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 06:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing meets WP:ORGCRIT. Financials and SWOT analysis are not in-depth coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * CNMall41, can you tell me what in-depth coverage looks like to you? Also, can you explain the issues with reports that include financial data in addition to narrative data -- I'm not sure I understand why that would disqualify the narrative material also. Financial data is less than half the content of these reports.
 * As for a SWOT analysis, I would think that would be particularly insightful.
 * Is this stuff just too detailed and analytical? Too much like a primary source for editors to review?
 * Thanks, -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Detailed and in-depth are not the same. They are very detailed to be used for content within the Wikipedia page, just not to establish notability. These reports are also put together with information supplied by the company (how else did they get the material?). Not independent enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT. If the company is well-known, why is it not covered in publications outside of these industry reports? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - I can confirm all 3 of Siroxo's refs are independent. These companies make their money off subscribers, not advertisers or the subject companies. World Market Intelligence has 2 divisions - one publishes ad-supported construction trade publications; the other publishes research reports like this one.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Siroxo, A. B. casualdejekyll  13:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Siroxo. In addition, product reviews https://www.forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/country-financial-home-insurance-review/ and https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/reviews/country-financial/, some news coverage https://www.wsiltv.com/news/illinois/country-financial-donates-1-500-to-support-backstoppers-of-randolph-county/article_52a2c5be-2fd5-11ee-8ce2-13dd120caaa9.html, https://www.beardstownnewspapers.com/country-financial-supports-cass-county-teachers-with-operation-helping-heroes-donation/, https://www.wglt.org/local-news/2023-06-30/state-farm-and-country-financial-get-thousands-of-illinois-claims-from-severe-storms. Seems to have enough referencing to support. - Indefensible (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these meet WP:ORGCRIT. For instance, the Forbes article is part of its Advisor program. Bankrate is a Red Ventures property that has been using AI generated content (being that its sister site (CNET) was just found to be unreliable I would suspect that a similar outcome would be had with Bankrate.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Forbes gave them 3/5 stars, that does not seem like a paid endorsement. The other stuff is speculation at this point. - Indefensible (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles in Forbes print and article written by Forbes staff writers are generally reliable for establishing notability per WP:FORBES. This is a review published in their "Advisor" series. While it may not be paid (never said it was by the way), they still earn a commission from the company for referrals through links (see the note at the top of the article). This would never be acceptable to show notability in Wikipedia as the financial interest with Country Financial takes away the independence of the reporting. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging your comment but I am going to just say that I still disagree. Keep in mind this is only supplemental material to add to what Siroxo posted and was agreed upon by 2 other editors (A. B. and casualdejekyll). So far you are the only person in stated agreement with the nomination. This is not meant to be appeal to authority by the way, just summarizing the facts. - Indefensible (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you disagree with WP:FORBES, a guideline that was implemented after strong community consensus? And your argument is an appeal to authority since AfD consensus is not based on vote count. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we agree that Forbes is generally a reliable source. What I meant is that we can agree to disagree, and maybe someone else will take up the argument with you. - Indefensible (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not actually. The link I sent you shows the Wikipedia community agrees that articles published in Forbes by staff writers are generally reliable. Everything else, including this one is NOT.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I still support Country Financial's notability but I think the bankrate.com and Forbes reviews are iffy.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:45, 12 August 2023 (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.