Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pricing Partners SAS


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Pricing Partners SAS

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a highly promotional article with a likely background in socks. A very similar version was deleted earlier, see Articles for deletion/"pricing partners", but I'm a bit hesitant to speedy this one since it appears to claim importance and has some...'references'. But those references do not appear to be very reliable or neutral, or to bring this up to notability. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi the article is quite fair. The references are true and checkable references. The article is neutral as it contains competitors. I do not think this article should be considered for speedy deletion. You can search on internet and could see that Pricing Partners is a real company. It has signed with numerous clients. See for instance its press release. And it is only a 25 employees with a notoriety much above this level. I believe the article is therefore appropriate. Let me know what we can do to make it more acceptable but I can tell that it is much better written than many articles on companies that hardly have references. Thanks, --Paul.cabot (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have even changed the reference to be reference that does not need any subscription. But look, the feature about Microsoft is very reliable as it is from the Microsoft website itself. This is rocket solid and I do not see why this article should therefore be deleted.

Thanks in advance for your time. Regards --Paul.cabot (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've had a look for more reliable sources and found a fair few e.g.  and there are a fair few of articles on factiva published by Banking Technology. It's difficult to say though whether these are sufficient to show that WP:CORP is met, as they generally have the look of regurgitated press releases rather than real "significant coverage". I'm sitting on the fence for the moment, but leaning towards delete unless some more solid sources can be found. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I should say what I consider "solid". I'd expect a notable company related to financial services to get at least a mention in an FT or Forbes article, but I couldn't find any. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I unerstand that it is difficult for you to state whether the WP:CORP is met but I believe this is met.
 * 1) this company has strong reputation but it is still a 25 employee French company so it is not surprising that it is not covered by the FT or Forbes source that you are mentionning. But to give a famous example, Instagramm page was created in April 2011 and did not have sufficent coverage according to your principles. But things changed after the Facebook deal. So your criterium seems too strict.
 * 2) the article is objective, rely on real sources, mention competition. Overall, these are objective true facts that can be checked on relyable sources. And clients of these company are not small companies but big names. The ICBC client win can easily be checked on Internet. Another interesting client win is Socgen that can be checked on internet. SocGen Corporate & Investment Banking taps Pricing Partners for derivatives valuation So with that respect, the company is not an unknown company but a company with sufficient notoriety.
 * 3) this article would presummably not have been nammed for deletion if there was not a speedy deletion earlier this month, wouldn't it?

I understand that this is hard to tell but I would recommend you go on the other side of the fence. Many thanks for your time. Paul.cabot (talk

--Paul.cabot (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, the conclusion may be: Pricing Partners has sufficient notoriety. Eric Benhamou is not relevant so we keep Pricing Partners and delete Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) page. Does it make sense to you?


 * I'm a bit busy so I'll have to be succinct in replying:
 * Having only 25 employees is a likely indication that the company is not notable. Regarding your example, WP:OTHERCRAP and WP:CRYSTAL are relevant.
 * That's irrelevant as without showing that the company meets WP:CORP the content is unimportant. We are here to discuss notability, not whether the article is neutral.
 * Even more irrelavant.
 * We judge each article on it's own merits - Eric Benhamou appears even less notable than Pricing Partners, but we won't do a deal to delete one and not the other. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Seeing as no more sources have appeared, I now think the article should be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I just noticed that Pricing Partners is salted suggesting a pretty concerted effort to create an article here. If this closes as delete, further applications of salt may be needed. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable company fails WP:CORP. I did not find much in the way of independent reliable sources. Sounds like interesting software, but its ultimately WP:TOOSOON for a WP article. None but shining hours (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi Smartse, understood your point. It was not a deal that I suggested but rather a way to solve this issue (smile). And as noted, we will have problem with the fact that the page may be salted. --Paul.cabot (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — Paul.cabot  (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Accept I am working in finance and this company is defintely quite well known. It should be accepted like what is done on other software with similar notoriety: Murex, Calypso, Kondor Suite, etc.. --Rowena.Queddeng (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Rowena.Queddeng  (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFF; if the company is definitely quite well known then it would receive coverage in indepedent reliable sources. None but shining hours (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I did a query on Bloomberg and found related news to Pricing Partners. I did the same test on Finextra and found again some results. Overall this company deserves a wikipedia article --Yuxinmao (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — Yuxinmao (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Can you give us the links? SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure Smartse. Bloomberg is a private application, so I can only post here a screenshot of the application: File:PricingPartnersNews.png. Smartse, Concerning Finextra, you can just go to finextra and type in "Pricing Partners". Let me know if you need more guidance on this. Thanks, --Yuxinmao (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The image is copyrighted and should be hosted on an external server. Commons is for free files only. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis of the Bloomberg sources provided just above, which are on their face almost entirely press releases, or mentions in articles about other companies & I strongly suspect based on press releases as well. In my experience, that's typical for Bloomberg. I consider the awards minor. notability  in this field is however not necessarily determined by size,  DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Persistent spam for a smallish market research firm. Repeatedly deleted, repeatedly recreated by an almost-SPA who denies conflict of interest rather unconvincingly. (I wonder if someone should take a look at Paul.cabot's only other focus of repeated edits, namely Calypso Technology, where most of his edits were deleted as spam and almost got the article speedied.) Repeated appearance of SPAs at AfD to urge a keep. Smacks of a really determined spam campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (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.