Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Standard Finance


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

National Standard Finance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I cannot establish any notable for this company. No gnews/gscholar hits on it.

Many of the references are in fact links to wikipedia articles. Only one of them seems to mention the subject directly but even then it's a series of slides from a presentation and the subject is only mentioned in passing. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 04:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- OSbornarfcontributionatoration 04:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Expanding my delete rational, possibly the largest issue here is that the article is an advertisement for the company. It includes a mass of unsourced claims about the company's success. Some of refs seem to make no sense (such as ref #7 in the second paragraph of the history section.) I believe the general consensus is that having large profits or otherwise handling a large amount of money does not make a company notable unless it passes WP:CORP. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarity, that reference #7 has since been removed. (The sentence says, "The firm expanded rapidly between 2007 and 2010 due to the economic crisis and greater demand for private solutions to public sector needs." This had been cited to the Wikipedia article 101 California Street (San Francisco) which is where this firm has an office.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I totally disagree with this assessment. This company virtually transformed an entire industry.  They advise world governments and if you actually read the posting you will note that they have historical reference as they were the first to do what they do in America.  Scholar's aren't interested in finance, but rather books.  These guys deal with real world events that impact our lives.  You read every day in the news that States are broke and can't pay their bills.  It's only because of this company it's not worse and that many of these have some options to save themselves.  This article should definitely not be removed.  The fact that they referenced a few Wikipedia pages simply to explain the terminology shouldn't be used against them as obviously it was examined and determined this content to be accurate.  Had the Wikipedia pages not been referenced to give a reader a way to understand the definition of such terminology many may not understand what it is that is being discussed.  I feel that this article is of importance and shouldn't be removed.  I can find 1,000's of other articles listed here that have no gnews/gscholar hits and are of much less significance than this entity and the set of world economic events described here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.150 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep  I just read the references and I disagree with the reviewers comments that the references do not directly reference the company. They do reference the company by specific name and are focus of several of the references.  These noted references discuss the subject company's involvement in multi-hundred's of millions of dollars of investments that specifically relate to the material of the article.  Additionally, two references are from highly credible magazines in Europe that interviewed the company's London representative and fund advisor.  The entire two articles are written solely based upon the opinions and investment strategies of the company who is the subject of this article.  As such, I disagree with the findings and leads me to think the reviewer didn't carefully review the links prior to commenting as his comments do not accurately reflect the context.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.150 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * struck through second !vote for this IP. Peridon (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Note to closing admin: Keep in mind the two IP posts above are the same IP. The IP has made, to date of the above comment, no other edits on WP.) Comment I was incorrect on the references. One of the refs (Greater Wilmington Business Journal) does directly mention the subject but only in passing as the financier of a loan. The National Real Estate Investor ref also mentions the company, but the company is not the main focus of the article. (A press release is also cited.) The IP above is incorrect however, about the UK refs. I cannot verify that the articles were based on advise from this company as the articles have no mention of the company. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I just did some external due diligence on this company to try and examine its notability. They were a $2.396 Billion company 2009.  They have been involved in some major projects.  Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is an Advisor to the company per reports.  You might notice the references of the article are all recent from August forward and older references weren't stated.  Maybe this site should be edited as it appears the author wasn't possibly familiar with how to construction a proper Wikipedia page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 05:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * — JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Keep in mind that having a notable person advising a company or having large cash flow does not make a company notable, see WP:CORP. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 06:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The influence and deeds of the firm are not in question, it is the merit of inclusion of the article.  Created and written by the Executive Director of NSF immediately violates Wikipedia policy.  The lack of sources from the likes of Forbes, NYT and Bloomberg as well as the wider financial press are an issue.  Books and thesis are not expected but credible and full coverage from the financial press, government bodies and a like.  I was researching the company before the flood of comments, and the firm while significant in the industry, does not meet the necessary criteria on sources.  Jørdan 06:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Created by the Executive Director of the firm and unable to locate independent sources to verify financials or notability per policy guidelines. Significant firm but its LLC status makes independent financial sources next to impossible to include. Jørdan 06:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I withdraw my comment in the greater interest of the community and to prevent misinterpretation of policy by external parties.  Jørdan 08:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment We may be persuaded by a $10,000 donation to the Wikipedia Foundation. Donate Jørdan 06:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed my improper and failed attempt at humour and I sincerely apologize. I did not wish to imply that I, the Wikimedia Foundation or it's editors, can be persuaded by monetary incentives to include or exclude articles. I do not speak on the foundation's behalf, its employees or contributors.  The opinions I express are entirely my own and should not be taken as the official policy of Wikipedia or the consensus of the community.  Jørdan 08:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't know making a donation resulted in inclusion. Sort of a conflict of interest?  If you seek a donation for this don't post here, tell the Executive Director who posted the article and see what they say.
 * Comment Jordan good points. I didn't know that fianncials had to be verified as Wiki is full of companies that are private that do not include financial statement third part references.  This company's annual revenues are found in research online.  My thought for keeping was simply that they did create an entire industry that is now a multi-billion industry and has changed public/government finance in the US.  Also as a result of their influence and developing this we now even hear President Obama saying that Public Private Partnerships are the future and encouraging States, cities and counties to engage in such so I felt that was notable enough in itself.  Especially since every day we turn on the TV we see where States are broke and need money.  I did find a few more credible references internationally in newspapers and publications.  I guess if inventing a way to keep American States from going bankrupt isn't notable or newsworthy then it's time to go.  But as I look at 100's of private equity sites have articles and one is no different than the next and I see nothing notable or different I don't see why this company created an entire industry and market recognized by the President of the US isn't as notable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.150 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If I may first point out that I created this account two weeks ago and therefore I am in no place to comment or advise on the policies that the community has implemented.  I am very much still learning what is and what is not an appropriate article, and the rules that govern them.  My opinion has no weight nor merit in the community and the fate of the article will not rest on what I have or have not said.  Please see Policies and guidelines for clarification on the issues involved.
 * Comment I never questioned the notability of the firm, in fact I wrote that the ' influence and deeds of the firm are not in question'.  Statements such as 'National Standard was thought by many industry insiders to be one of the most active financiers and investors of renewable energy assets in North America' may be true but they must be properly referenced to a credible and independent source.  Given the style and content of the article it would be difficult to give considered sources to each statement, that is all I meant by notability and sources.  There are indeed a great many private equity firms with articles on Wikipedia, and each one would be considered on its own individual merit if nominated for deletion.  I never nominated the article but made a considered comment on its inclusion based on its creation by the Exec Director of the firm, the lack of sources for the statements made and most importantly the lack of information available on firm and the statements made despite my research.  To avoid further cluttering of this page, please comment here if you wish to discuss with me directly, otherwise comments regarding the article and its deletion should remain here, thanks, Jørdan 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I attempted to clean up the wiki-formatting of this article so that the footnotes citing other Wikipedia pages would be turned into wikilinks. That aside, though, I don't see how this article can portray this company as a "pioneer" in its industry without even saying when it was founded. The firm's own web site doesn't say when it was founded, either. The earliest specific year mentioned in this article appears to be 2007. But public-private partnerships certainly existed before 2007. Wikipedia has had an article about them since 2004. For that matter, here's a discussion of a public-private partnership being proposed for a dam to generate power -- in 1955. That was before President Obama was even born. (I note that this company may in the future be found to be notable, in which case the article can be re-created. But for now, I can't find even one article about them in the Google News Archive, which strikes me as a bad sign for their notability.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the wiki-formatting was an improvement. I believe you clearly misread or misunderstood the article as I read it.  The articles reference to 2007 simply points to a major event and timeframe tied to the economic crisis and no where does it state the company was formed or originated in 2007, but simply explains the significance during this timeframe.  Additionally, the article clearly says it did not pioneer the invention of public-private partnerships which have existed for over 200 years in Europe.  What the article says is that this entity was responsible and a pioneer for taking the public-private partnership and public finance initiatives that had been common in Europe for centuries and had been the first to introduce these investment models to the United States.  By simply putting their name in a search engine you can easily find the age of the company as I just did so.  You might also note that a large number of the coroporations listed in this article in which this company does business with all have Wiki pages/profiles.  Not sure what you searched for in Google, but I am puzzled by your comments regarding your findings.  It's clearly a delete as this group is full of academics who lack any understanding of business.  As I try to review different articles for inclusion I notice virtually every article is critically attacked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Reads like promotion to me, with a distinct tone of internally rather than externally written. Carefully worded promotion - not the commonplace peacock flaunting we tag for speedy. "70 professionals"? Not a lot to run a business this big - are the rest amateurs? (Apologies - couldn't resist that...) As to PFI - it may be new in the USA, but it's been around in the UK for 18 years and was in existence in Australia well before that. Without evidence that this company were involved back then, they can hardly be described as 'pioneers'. Peridon (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, you didn't read the article either or misunderstood. The article never says or implies they pioneered anything in the UK or Australia and specifically references UK as the pre-existing market that they later introduced and pioneered in the United States for the first time, not the UK.  Please carefully read the material prior to commenty inaccuarately.  As to staff, check other similar firms here in Wiki...try Golden Gate Capital Partners.  They are four times larger at 9 billion and state they have only 30 employees.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Capital  --JohnWhitehurst (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, what exactly did they pioneer, in what country, when, and what sources say that they did that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, if you simply read the article to a greater extent than just scanning it and making assumptions it would tell you. It clearly says, they Pioneered the European financial practices of Private Finance Initiative and Public Private Partnership in the U.S meaning they brought what was done in Europe to the US it also goes on to say that it previously only been done for very large infrastructure projects and this company made it available to small cities and counties who had never had excess.  Just Delete it because regardless what sources are available, you discredit them anyone as you clearly haven't done your own research as your comments are not based in fact or substance, but rather your personal opinion only.  Check the Golden Gate Capital Partners Wiki link I posted above and show me their references and why they are notable?  Thousands of others just like it on Wiki.  It appears some want a different litmus test for some articles and others get a free ride.  If I were the author of this article and had spent that much time preparing it I would be very upset to see the very poorly written commentary posted here by people who haven't even read the article or at least have no idea what is is describing and its significance.  The sources are public information and the financial industy it is well known.   Clearly, if you don't follow banking and government project related news you wouldn't know about the company or even the industry.  Many sites on Wiki have only one reference and some have none, at least these people did have more than 10 which is now reduced to 6.  Another 4 pages of references online if you know how to do web research properly.   So all the companies they do business with in the same industry are listed on Wiki, but they shouldn't even though they all followed after them and still rely upon this company to service them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.150 (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It peacocks the subject as a pioneer, then goes on later to mention, oh yes, Europe and elsewhere were already doing this. What other articles have or don't have is irrelevant under Wikipedia policy. Whether the company is well known or not in its circles is also irrelevant, as is whether I've heard of it or not. I haven't, but I have heard of companies involved with PFI over here like Jarvis PLC who have sold on to Vinci. It's not referencing so much I am bothered about. It's the possible scenario of a CEO giving instructions for an article on Wikipedia to be created. I don't know whether this is so or not, or whether the article is created by someone in the company or not. It reads like that to me, hence my opinion. The comment about a donation has been struck by its poster, and apparently was intended to be humorous but is now regretted. It is not an official statement, nor an exposition of official policy. If you knew how Wikipedia operates, you would realise that that wouldn't work anyway. Peridon (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Metropolitan 90...I just checked your own published articles on Wiki that you have credited to your name.  They have zero references to substantiate the articles and the article are of no relative notable nature as I have heard of them.  So should we nominate your sites for deletion since you don't have any references at all as you said here even 6 isn't acceptable in your opinion?   You judge by a different measure than what you publish yourself it appears.  Note above here it even says if someone were to donate $10,000 to Wiki it would be considered.  That's very troubling when you think that the content of Wikipedia is directed by those who are willing to donate substantial sums.  While I don't think it was intended to be, legally speaking its also a form of extorsion to make such a comment.  If this company's management or attorneys saw that Wikipedia might have an issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment about donating was a joke, the user rescinded that comment if you look above. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 12:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A few comments. 1. As Osborn points out, the comment about a $10,000 donation was meant as a joke and was struck out by Jordan before I ever made any comment in this AfD discussion. There is no extortion going on here, just a poor attempt at humor. 2. You state that "no where does it state the company was formed or originated in 2007", which is true, but nowhere does it state when the company was formed at all. This is significant because if we are trying to figure out whether the company introduced a particular practice in the United States, we need to know when they started doing that. 3. If you believe that the Golden Gate Capital article is insufficiently sourced, you can feel free to nominate it for deletion as long as you legitimately believe it deserves to be deleted and are not just trying to make a point. 4. The reason certain references were removed as footnotes in National Standard Finance was primarily that they were just links to other Wikipedia articles which could be dealt with by ordinary wikilinks and did not need to be footnotes. 5. No articles are entitled to a free ride. If you truly believe that articles I created ought to be deleted from Wikipedia for being insufficiently sourced, then you can nominate them at Articles for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I have just now restored one footnote to the article which I had erroneously confused with another source cited therein. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am unable to fins any significant coverage about this company. The claim that it pioneered public-private partnerships in the US are not borne out by an reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no WP:RS to substantiate most of the claims in this article, and the company does not appear to meet WP:CORP/WP:GNG. I agree with the assertions that this is a cleverly-worded advertising/puff piece. -- Kinu t /c  18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, any further questions to User:JohnWhitehurst will likely go unanswered, as they have been blocked for sockpuppetry, per this and other edits. -- Kinu t /c  18:59, 12 January 2011 (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.