Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeCharge


 * 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.  Sandstein  22:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

SafeCharge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Trivial coverage from non-notable sources, created by now blocked user for promo. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  23:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

*Keep While I do agree that the WP:PRIMARY genesis of this article was most (definitely) likely due to an employee or other associate closely related to the company, the article satisfies WP:CORP and WP:NOTE, with WP:SIGCOV supported by reputable, and more importantly regular WP:SECONDARY as noted above. Ventric (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Fails WP:NCORP (specifically WP:CORPDEPTH][]). Definitley is a case of [[WP:DEL4. --Kirbanzo (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Regularly covered in Globes, has also been covered in Haaretz, Reuters, Financial Times. Is covered by at least 4 analysts. And it's an Israeli company, so there are likely to be more sources found in Hebrew. Toohool (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete All points point towards Zero. This is actually a rampant WP:ACTUALCOI and horrible example of failing WP:NCORP -- as Drewmutt pointed out in his original AfD. I should have delved much deeper before my initial evaluation of WP:SECONDARY. Each search of source refers back to the company itself. Good game of SEO to manipulate a decent PageRank. This page should be disposed of. Ventric (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill business with an effective marketing and PR department. References listed in the article and above by all fail the criteria for establishing notability. The  Globes references  are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. The reference in Haaretz is based on an interview with the CEO and fails WP:ORGIND, the Reuters reference is also based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND, the Financial Times reference is based on the same announcement and fails WP:ORGIND also, nor is mentioning that the company has analyst coverage a criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 13:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Analyst coverage means that there are analyst reports, which are independent sources. That is specifically listed in WP:NCORP as a reason why publicly traded companies are usually notable. Your application of WP:ORGIND is wrong. You seem to interpret "substantially based on a press release" to include any article about something that the company announced in a press release. That's not what it means. Here's an example: SafeCharge issued this release about their 2014 earnings. Here is an article where the "reporter" changed the first paragraph of the press release a bit and then slapped his name on it. That is "substantially based on a press release." Here is the Globes article on the same story, where they incorporate the information from the press release, and bring other sources to bear on it, such as commentary from an investment bank. That is a perfectly good source for notability. As is the Haaretz article - the mere fact that it uses an interview with the CEO as one of its sources does not make it not an independent source. Toohool (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you provide any links to analyst reports - if so, there's a good chance that the reports would serve as an indication of notability (but not a guarantee). For example, there's a publically available Morningstar analyst report that merely reports financial performance - in my opinion this fails the criteria. But I know there might exist other analyst reports that provide market sector intelligence or a breakdown into competition, etc, and in my opinion those reports would probably meet the criteria. There's a difference between stating that analysts cover a company and analysts publishing independent reports. Also, there are stockbrokers who label themselves "analysts" and those stockbroking companies may not always have internal "chinese walls" as they (or their funds or customers) may have a interest in the stock. I'm happy to change my !vote if there are analysts reports that do more than simply report the financials. I disagree in relation to the Globes article. It is substantially based on a company announcement and press release and while it summarises other events such as the two acquisitions, it is devoid of intellectually independent opinion or analysis and further relies on quotations from a stockbroking analyst firm (Numis) - it is also very similar to this article, even down to the quotation from Numis.  HighKing++ 21:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There you are again with that "independent opinion or analysis" line. Where is that in policy again? Perhaps you are paraphrasing from WP:AEIS, which defines a secondary source as including "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". Synthesis is not a high bar to meet, it just requires drawing from multiple sources, which these articles do. As for analyst reports, I think you probably know that they are not generally readily available online. But, as luck would have it: Here is a report from Bryan Garnier. 31 pages of analysis of SafeCharge's finances, history, offerings, prospects, and competition. If you take issue with analyst reports in general because of the potential conflicts of interest, I think WP:NCORP is the place to bring that up. Toohool (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2018 (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.