Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maistro


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Maistro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The references here are standard coverage you would expect from any small publicly listed company, at least in the UK at any rate. Beyond this I do not believe this small company is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Uhooep (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Minimal coverage in reliable sources, doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - While not a massive presence, they are notable for their unique approach to procurement and the controversy created by the previous CEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentunderstand (talk • contribs) 12:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  16:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Frequently talked about in unbiased, globally-recognised industry publication, Spend Matters. Katypotatie (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2018 (GMT)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Both Keep !voters above are SPA that have only ever edited the Maistro article. No COI declarations made by either.  HighKing++ 20:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither of the Keep !voters above have provided any links to any references to support their claims of notability. I have not been able to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are company announcements or based substantially on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. From Notability (organizations and companies) (my bolding): "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." Analyst reports  This 12 May 2014 articleInternet Archive from Proactive Investors notes: "George O'Connor, analyst at Panmure Gordon, commented in a morning note, 'The root cause is success rather than fail.'" Here is a longer quote from The Guardian hereWebCite, which notes: "George O'Connor at Panmure Gordon said: 'How did we get to this state? The root cause is success rather than fail – but the front end of the organisation operating at a different speed than the back end. Projects submitted to blur Group's Global Services Exchange have increased in value, complexity and duration, a trend that is continuing into 2014. The trend seems to have accelerated from the third quarter onwards when there was a new finance function in the company, but also the company moved HQ to Exeter. The nature of the newer projects resulted in extended periods between project submission, project kick-off and project completion. Due to these longer timeframes, the board has taken a more conservative view of project revenue recognition with several larger value projects extending over several reporting periods or years and therefore a significant proportion of the revenue associated with project bookings achieved in 2013 will be recognised in 2014 and beyond.'" Panmure Gordon is an institutional stockbroker and investment bank. This PDFarchive.is has the full copy of a 23-page analyst report written by GECR analysts Emanuil Manos Halicioglu and Andrew Noone about the subject. The report lists several risks of the company; here are some headers, each of which in the report is followed by paragraphs of further explanation:<li>The group has a relatively short operating history and operates in an evolving market.</li><li>The group’s IT systems depend on each other and a failure in one may disrupt theefficiency and functioning of the group’s operations.</li><li>The group may face online security breaches including hacking and vandalism</li><li>Reliance on customers to change procurement habits.</li><li>Dependence on maintaining the expert network.</li><li>Economic conditions and current economic weaknesses.</li></ol> According to http://www.burnbrae.com/holdings/burnbrae-media-limited, GECR is owned by Burnbrae Media. </li> <li>This 17 April 2014 articleWebCite from This is Money notes: "Analyst Robin Speakman at Shore Capital says his core concern is that revenue recognition has not matched cash flows. He has pulled his forecasts and recommendation from consensus for blur and expects to make major changes in due course, possibly further deferring the timing of the inflection point of profitability and cash generation to a material degree. He believes blur still has an interesting and potentially attractive business model that may yet dominate the services procurement space. But the hyperbole of market penetration announcements must be matched by delivery to clients and investors alike." According to https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=SGR:LSE, Shore Capital "offers corporate advice; a market-making business; investment research available in the United Kingdom, and a range of investment opportunities within its asset management and principal finance activities".</li> <li>This 8 October 2013 articleWebCite from Proactive Investors notes: "Liberum Capital, for whom a ‘buy’ recommendation is not enough – the rating is ‘strong buy’ - said the update reveals very strong momentum in all areas of the business. “While the number of projects submitted and completed are running ahead of expectations, the major upside in the quarter came from average project value submitted which rose sharply to $28.8K in the quarter, from $22.9K in Q2’13. This reflects the rising adoption of the exchange by larger businesses resulting in higher value projects being submitted,” Liberum said. The broker is pondering whether its revenue forecast of US$9.4mln for the current year is now optimistic enough." The article also notes: "Shore Capital also seems to have been caught on the hop by blur’s astounding progress, and it is set to revise upwards its revenue expectations for the current year and beyond. “We believe that the projects submitted figure is likely to pull through an acceleration in projects completed for the current quarter – driving the materiality of our upgrade. The increase in the average submitted project value to $29k from $13k is a less important figure than project volumes to our minds. This figure is set to remain volatile and is still dominated by just a few larger projects – we believe that this figure is set to ameliorate over time as the platform grows and matures,” Shore’s Robin Speakman said." This 24 September 2013 articlearchive.is from the Financial Times notes: "The prize is large: analysts at Liberum Capital estimate that the addressable market for ‘services commerce’ is $1.1trn, and that Blur could process more than a $1bn in transactions within a decade. “Blur’s s-commerce platform is moving from concept towards mass adoption,” they wrote in a note to clients." <li>This 23 June 2017 articlearchive.is from the Financial Times notes: "Megabuyte, the technology research company, said in a note: “Blur has raised approximately £25m ($32m) over the past five years, at prices of 82p, 150p and 75p per share respectively, all of which has been now used up. Blur has also finally joined the prestigious 99% club and, as with its options, its days now certainly look numbered.”" This 24 September 2013 articlearchive.is from the Financial Times notes: "Yet some observers are not buying the hype. ... “The question is whether, with those gross margins, they’re ever going to make any decent money for shareholders, given the investment that has already gone into it,” says Ian Spence, an analyst at Megabuyte." </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Maistro to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * According to this articlearchive.is from the Express & Echo, "Blur Group rebrands and changes name to Maistro PLC". Cunard (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The analyst reports from Panmure Gordon, GECR, Shore Capital, Liberum Capital, and Megabuyte provide substantial coverage of the subject. Cunard (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. The company is indeed listed but at Alternative Investment Market, a sub-market reserved for smaller, less valuable companies. The analyst reports above are insufficient to meet the notability threshold. In any case, the article is promotionalism-only, so is also eligible for WP:TNT delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "The analyst reports above are insufficient to meet the notability threshold." – Notability (organizations and companies) says (my bolding): "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." Why are the analyst reports above such as this 23-page analyst report from GECR "insufficient to meet the notability threshold"? Here is the table of contents for the GECR analyst report: "Summary And Investment Conclusion (3) Business Summary (5)    The Exchange Process (5)     Users (6)     Revenue model (6)     Strategy (7)  The Market (8)     Business services (8)     Benefits of B2B e-commerce (8)     Drivers of e-commerce (8)     Potential market size (9)     Competition (10)  Financial Forecasts (12)  Valuation (15)  Risks (18)  Appendix (20)" This is extensive analysis of the company. Cunard (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't consider the company to be sufficiently notable; the retention of this article is not going to improve the project. WP:TNT also applies; the article is non-neutral and is not helpful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed a promotional section from the article. There is negative coverage in the "Revenue reporting concerns" section. I think the article is not overly promotional, but if you have suggestions about what else to remove or reword, I am open to acting on them. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (Marginal) Keep I noted that a previous commenter suggests there is some "controversy created by the previous CEO", presumably Philip Letts (formerly CEO of Beenz.com). The existing article does not mention him, yet web searches suggest that, as CEO of Blur/Maistro, he was in charge as it encountered various financial difficulties, running through at least three CFOs (see Guardian in 2015) and Blur shares suspended on AIM in June 2017, after which he left the company - a departure noted in The Times. Fleshing out the history of the business may therefore bring in additional material from reliable sources (for example, I've noted some pieces - example - on a site called Spend Matters - not sure of its reliability). If time allows, I will have a crack at rewriting/expanding the existing article - otherwise, yes, maybe WP:TNT. Paul W (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Partial rewrite/expansion done - Paul W (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.