Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M Lhuillier


 * 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. I was going to close this discussion as No consensus but even the critical source review shows three sources exist, in this editor's opinion, that count towards GNG. So, I'm closing this one as a Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

M Lhuillier

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

Consensus at Deletion review/Log/2023 January 14 overturned this article's speedy deletion and sent it to AfD instead. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies,  and Philippines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think there are sufficient newspaper articles in existence to meet the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Every source I looked at felt like paid advertising. "M Lhuillier offers affordable insurance plans for every Filipino" really? WP:N is in debate due to independence issues.  WP:CORP doesn't seem close. Hobit (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Using a quick google search I think there are many articles online that prove the business of the company. Including articles from Philippine government agency that do business with the said company. https://pia.gov.ph/press-releases/2022/09/07/gsis-partners-with-m-lhuillier-to-expand-loan-payment-solutions I agree that many of them may seem like promotions but is that not typical of a financial services company in a developing market like the Philippines? I found one article on the competitive landscape of the Remittance industry by a berkshire hathaway company that also discusses the said company as part of the remittance industry of the Philippines https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221222005213/en/Philippines-Remittance-Market-Size-Share-Trends-Analysis-Report-2022-2030---Partnerships-Between-Companies-Boosting-Remittance-Services---ResearchAndMarkets.com. 103.44.234.245 (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete There are reliable sources here but they support the M. Lhuillier Group of Companies instead of the Pawnshop company. The Pawnshop/financial company itself, on its own, might not be notable enough as most of the sources that supports it are press releases. -- Lenticel  ( talk ) 14:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Except for the Manila Bulletin piece, none of the pieces you have deemed a press release (Business World, SunStar, ABS CBN and Manila standard) has anything that suggests the articles are press releases. How did you come to that conclusion? Orasims (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you justify those articles as neutral and significant coverage with their wording style? I do agree that press release might not be the best term for them but if you have a better term for them then I'll change my assessment. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as the article has nothing that confirms dependence (tagged with a 'press release', 'sponsored' label or has company contact information as is the case with the Manila Bulletin piece), I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that those pieces aren't independent. Also being Philippines publications, international publications sometimes have relatively lenient standards for their writing and wording style. Plus for at least 3 of the 4 pieces, I don't think they are bad with their wording style. The Business World article, for example, is very justified to me. Same for SunStar and ABS CBN. I read the full articles. Orasims (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the Business World article, what part of wording style wasn't neutral for independence? Orasims (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point where in the article satisfies WP:ORGIND? -- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Heres an article by a berkshire company that probably should be included. More researched based I would argue. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221222005213/en/Philippines-Remittance-Market-Size-Share-Trends-Analysis-Report-2022-2030---Partnerships-Between-Companies-Boosting-Remittance-Services---ResearchAndMarkets.com and https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5665129/philippines-remittance-market-size-share-and?utm_source=BW&utm_medium=PressRelease&utm_code=mgtt7v&utm_campaign=1796231+-+Philippines+Remittance+Market+Size%2c+Share+%26+Trends+Analysis+Report+2022-2030+-+Partnerships+Between+Companies+Boosting+Remittance+Services&utm_exec=chdo54prd 103.44.234.245 (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(reset indent)Learned about Churnalism, I think I should keep my press release statement though as the term is too accusatory for my taste. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC) I think the article as it stands satisfies WP:ORGIND. Can you please elaborate where in the wording style of Business World article isn't neutral for independence? Orasims (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's no information there that was produced by the author that cannot be found in a press release. Can you point which part of the article satisfies WP:ORGIND? -- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As answered earlier, the article as it stands including its wording style and information is reasonable and satisfies WP:ORGIND. Can you please share the press release you think was used to create the Business World article to compare? Orasims (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not enough reliable sources to pass gng. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 15:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the ones used in the article? If so, why are they not reliable? Can you explain? Orasims (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Orasims,Check the Source assessment table: prepared by User:Lenticel. Most of those sources faill GNG. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are the sources not reliable though? A source doesn't need to pass GNG to be reliable. Also, Lenticel themselves marked almost every source as reliable. Orasims (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. In it's current incarnation (about the financial company), it does not seem notable. However, no prejudice against recreation as an article about the group if it can be found notable. Clyde!Franklin! 01:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Keep. See below. Clyde!Franklin! 03:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide your rationale why the financial company is not notable? Have you checked the sources used in the article? What do you think? Orasims (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Orasims, I mainly based my !vote on Lenticel's chart and didn't think there were enough sources for notability, but, honestly, looking again, I do now think there is sufficient notability and have striked my vote. Clyde!Franklin! 03:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple in-depth news articles about the pawnshop/financial company in reliable publications that are independent of the subject. Examples are Manila Bulletin, Manila Standard, Philippine Star, Business World, The Manila Times, SunStar and ABS CBN. It's argued that independence is in question for some of the articles being churnalism, but a quick google search turns up no press releases that use the same text. Orasims (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NCORP per above arguments. Sources in the article are reliable enough, with a lot of them in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - as per above arguments. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 03:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Research reports such as this from Grand View Research and this from Ken Research are considered to meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic passes NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:58, 31 January 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.