Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledger Investing


 * 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. The reliability of the sources has been successfully challenged.

(Note: at first attempt to close, I closed as keep by mistake; this was a mis-click.) Stifle (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ledger Investing

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

Non-notable company. Sources cited are mostly primary, and the few secondary ones are press release regurgitations and routine business reporting. Search finds nothing of substance. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree here. I came here to this article to categorize it, and then I saw this and immediately clicked. Should have been a PROD (in my opinion) Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 22:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep well I don't want to challenge anyone's decision but if WP:GNG is true then this is notable. After clicking on the news section of the tag itself, Google display full media coverage from independent reliable sources and I cited the most important one. Tifflove (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Entirely understandable stance, from the article creator. Just to be clear, which is "the most important one"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL investment company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - The page definitely needs to be written as per wikipedia standards and not in bullet point resume / newsletter format. With the way it’s written, the page doesn’t focus on what sets it apart from being just another WP:ROTM company. However, as per reference 4, the company significantly reduced the industry standard securitization process from months into a few weeks. These points needs to reflect in the article in an encyclopedic manner. So, it’s definitely not just another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company, the page needs improvement though.
 * Techcrunch is WP:RS and gives good information about the company. The funding related sources also gives quite a lot of information about the company. Other sources included, are in accordance with WP:V and significant sources
 * 1. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/10/05/635290.htm
 * 2. https://www.reinsurancene.ws/ledger-investing-adds-ex-aig-ceo-peter-hancock-to-board/
 * 3. https://www.theinsurer.com/news/ledger-placed-300mn-of-gross-premium-with-capital-markets-in-21/20182.article
 * 4. https://www.artemis.bm/news/ledger-places-300m-of-premium-into-capital-markets-in-2021/
 * Happy to edit it if it stays.--Trolli Onida (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Analysis of references
 * 1. This from Insurance Journal is a company announcement. It says it as the bottom of the article. It is a Primary Source so cannot be used to establish notability. Also fails WP:ORGIND.
 * 2. This from Reinsurance News is entirely based on another company announcement (says it in the article) with all information being provided by the company and their execs. Here are several more articles covering the same announcement and they're all pretty much exactly the same. No "Independent Content", they all fail WP:ORGIND
 * 3. This from The Insurer is based entirely on an "update" provided by the company (says it in the article), has no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
 * 4. Finally, this from Artemis is largely the exact same article as this from the Insurer, same date, same quotes, different "authors". Again, based on an "update" provided by the company, the article rely entirely on the company and/or execs for all the information. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * None of those references meet our guidelines for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 19:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply and not just GNG. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.
 * Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable WP:RS and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
 * As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. We need to evaluate each reference against WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. In short WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or 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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:16, 24 April 2022 (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.