Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lend america


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lend america

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for speedy as spam, yet tag has been repeatedly removed by multiple parties screaming "Ghits! It's notable!". Notability is not relevant here. This article is spam. DarkAudit (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was doing some New Page patrols when I came across this article. It has 43,400 Ghits which, if searched, show mentions of the firm by Reuters and other notable organisations. I have no personal interest in this article, but I believe that the speedy tag was slapped on too quickly by DarkAudit - hence I took it off, to allow further research. I strongly believe that DarkAudit needs to take a little more time before making a judgement, as he/she has been has been proved to be wrong at least twice just tonight - just look at my talk page. This editor left me two messages falsely claiming I had written the article! (All he/she needed to do was to take a quick look at the article's history!)-- Myosotis Scorpioides  21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A textbook example of WP:GHITS there. At no point did I question the notability of the subject. The article was written as an advertisement. As spam. It's improved slightly since then, but it still looks rather spammy. DarkAudit (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;  neuro  (talk)  00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is absolutely relevant here, and this organisation is notable.  If the current version is spam, fix it; AfD is not cleanup.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep--S Marshall, are mortgage lenders inherently notable? I was fully prepared to find dozens of Google News hits, but to my surprise I found only this one--fortunately for the joint, it's in the NYT, so I'm going to assume that the company is indeed notable. I had heard of them, for instance--that makes it notable in my book ;) Drmies (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I doubt if being a mortgage lender is inherently notable. I think being a mortgage lender of this size is notable.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - for me it doesn't pass WP:COMPANY ("significant coverage"). Also I don't know what "12th largest direct-to-consumer FHA lender" means so it's hard to judge the significance of this claim, especially without market share figures (isn't it a very concntrated market, so 12th may be pretty small?). NB Ghits may be particularly misleading in this case as mortgages are a high-value product and so affiliates may bump the hits a lot. Rd232 talk 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, weak keep. Rd232 talk 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "FHA lender" in the US means a lender whose loans are insured by the FHA. Direct-to-consumer lenders are the ones that lend to individual people by means of company representatives, rather than lending tranches of money on the national or international money markets by means of financial instruments such as credit-backed securities, and rather than acting through financial intermediaries or brokers, although a "direct-to-consumer"'s mortgage products might well be available through brokers as well.  In other words, "Direct-to-consumer" means the kind of mortgage lender most people understand.
 * I think it passes WP:COMPANY because of innovation -- the first lender to run a paperless application system -- and impact on the economy. You're right to say it won't be a large company in terms of premises or number of employees (I'm guessing less than 1000 employees, and maybe less than 500), but it'll certainly be an outfit worth hundreds of millions of dollars.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I shouldn't be surprised if their mortgage book includes a fair proportion of credit-impaired people. :)— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  20:29, 14 March 2009 (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.