Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Reality Inc.


 * 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. While sources have been provided here, enough reasonable doubt has been raised about them by enough people to create a consensus to delete. Vanamonde (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Social Reality Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Tiffanytoms with few other contributions. The company is listed, but it's a micro-cap with just $45M valuation. In any case, being listed on an exchange is not a pass to using Wikipedia is an advertising platform. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 03:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Might be notable via WP:LISTED and article salvageable. It reads like an advert though, all the sources are bad. I would recommend some research and removal of bad material if it proves to be notable &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  08:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the company is notable via WP:LISTED's stating that analyst reports can be used to establish notability. I have posted analyst reports below. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:09, 15 September 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 16 August 2018 articlearchive.is from StreetInsider notes: "Chardan Capital Markets analyst James McIlree raised the price target on Social Reality (NASDAQ: SRAX) to $10.00 (from $5.00) while maintaining a Buy rating. McIlree said the recent sale of SRAXmd puts the company 'in the strongest financial position in its history, provides a template for growth in (currently) four other verticals, provides a 31% ownership interest in the continued growth of SRAXmd, and provides capital for the growth of other high margin verticals and BIGToken.'"  This 28 July 2016 articlearchive.is from TheFly notes: "Roth Capital analyst Darren Aftahi started Social Reality with a Buy rating and $2 price target."   This 9 February 2016 articlearchive.is from TheFly notes: "Rodman & Renshaw analyst Kevin Dede started Social Reality with a Buy rating and $3 price target."  Trickle Research has published multiple analyst reports about the company. This 25 April 2017 analyst reportInternet Archive initiated coverage of the company. The report provides an overview of Social Research: "Social Reality, Inc. (dba: “SRAX”) is an Internet based platform technology company that provides tools to automate the digital advertising market. The Company’s technology addresses both “buy side” and “sell side” digital advertising customers. Its robust technology platform solution aggregates traditional media, digital media and social media into a single intuitive dashboard. In addition, its proprietary software is designed to provide advertising buyers (agencies and direct advertisers) with deep information about the attributes of their customers and potential customers. This functionality allows advertisers to better target, track and determine the effectiveness of their advertising, thus considerably improving the ROI of advertising campaigns. The Company’s proprietary technology provides those services by leveraging and combining different types of data along various verticals, many of which have been developed specifically by SRAX. Since inception, the Company’s technology has allowed them to accumulate massive amounts of data regarding consumers and their preferences. As each day passes, the Company collects more and more of that data. Moreover, in the aggregate, each new piece of data makes the existing data more valuable. We believe the Company’s current valuation may significantly understate the value of that data alone. However, that value is gaining visibility as the Company continues to monetize it as measured by their increasing revenues. The Company was launched as a California LLC (Social Reality LLC) in August 2009. The Company commenced business operations in May 2010. On January 1, 2012, the Company was converted to a Delaware C-Corp. and changed its name to Social Reality, Inc. The Company went public through the filing an S-1 registration statement (effective June 22, 2012), and filed its first 10Q on August 20, 2012." The report also provides an industry overview, a discussion about Social Research and "buy side" vs. "side", online vs. offline, and search vs. display. It gives a product overview, the verticals, and other potential verticals. It discusses Social Research's operating overview and its risks and caveats. Here is a sample from the "Risks and Caveats" section: "SRAX operates in a highly competitive industry where many if its competitors are larger and better capitalized. Moreover, its often difficult to even delineate who the competitors are across the various channels and services that comprise the industry. In addition, as we have alluded to above, technology plays a significant role in the industry, which we don’t expect to change in the near future. SRAX’s ability to keep up with those technology changes against larger better capitalized competitors is in our view a marked risk in the deal. In October 2014, SRAX arranged a secured debt a financing from Victory Park Management LLC (“the Lender”). The transaction provided SRAX with access to $20 million of borrowings, but was subject to certain conditions and ongoing covenants. From the inception of the financing through February 2016, the Company borrowed a total of $14 million. During 2016, the Company also violated some of the covenants required by the financing, which by agreement made the debt essentially payable on demand. While we are not sure the Company anticipated the calling of the note(s) even in spite of the covenant violations, that is what the lender chose to do. ... ... We’ve provided this narrative regarding the debt covenant violations and the cascade of events those precipitated because they have created a liquidity problem for the Company that remains a topical risk. ... ...  Like many small companies SRAX relies on a small number of people. We think that is especially true of their founder and CEO, Chris Miglino. The loss of Mr. Miglino and/or a handful of other key individuals could prove considerably negative." Other analyst reports from Trickle Research were published 22 May 2017Internet Archive, 17 June 2017Internet Archive, 21 August 2017Internet Archive, 25 October 2017Internet Archive, 1 August 2018Internet Archive, and 16 August 2018Internet Archive. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Social Reality to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The analyst reports from Chardan Capital Markets, Roth Capital Partners, Rodman & Renshaw, and Trickle Research are sufficient to establish notability per Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable per above sources. desmay (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * please see my comment below. Some of the reports listed above are potentially dubious, as coming from firms involved in financial fraud. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Nom's comment: analyst reports are primary sources, and in this case, we are dealing with a micro-cap stock, so some of these reports are likely to be dodgy. For example, Roth Capital Partners, listed by Cunard as an indicator of notability, contains this sourced content:
 * The company has been criticized and accused of fraud for its underwriting practices and the deals it has promoted.
 * Rodman & Renshaw is a red link, but the firm is mentioned in the article The China Hustle, a documentary that "depicts the fraud that continues to occur in the United States, wherein small nondescript Chinese companies are hyped up and sold by American investment banks to U.S. based investors." Rodman is mentioned in this context:
 * One of the classic examples of the Reverse China Merger Fraud was Advanced Battery Technologies (ABAT), CEO Zhigou Fu. ABAT raised $89,000,000 in three separate offerings through Rodman and Renshaw and at one point had a market-cap of $250,000,000. ABAT was first delisted by NASDAQ and subsequently deregistered by the SEC..."
 * I would encourage to be more diligent in their vetting when offering up sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Analyst reports are secondary sources, not primary sources. From No original research: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." These analyst reports provide the analysts' "own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event". Analysts participate in companies' earning calls, read companies' documents, and do their own evaluation and interpretation of how well the company is doing.  As the the Roth Capital and Rodman & Renshaw sources are dubiously reliable because of their past practices, I am striking those sources.  I found a more established investment bank in this Social Reality Q4 2017 earnings call transcript. In it, Matthew Larson of Wells Fargo Securities asks the company questions. Larson at one point says "I'm just looking at my notes here and again most of them were covered". Matthew Larson's notes and analyst reports about Social Reality for Wells Fargo Securities customers are solid reliable sources.  Cunard (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The sources presented by Cunard need better analysis. Are they sufficient to meet WP:NCORP?
 * Delete - Does not meet notability as per WP:ORGCRIT. The article looks like a marketing tool --Jay (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete : The numerous sources cited in Cunard's typically diligent work lead to financial analyses by financial analysts. The firms specifically cited by Cunard, such as Chardan Capital Markets, Trickle Research, Roth Capital Partners ("committed to identifying small-cap companies ... coverage [of] over 270 growth companies around the globe"), etc, focus on firms with "growth potential," which sets the whole issue firmly into WP:TOOSOON territory. The sources do not translate to notability and, moreover, neither to encyclopaedic worthiness. Wikipedia is not a value founder! -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The firms that published the analyst reports focus on "growth potential" and "growth companies" which refer to growth stocks, stocks "that generat[e] substantial and sustainable positive cash flow and whose revenues and earnings are expected to increase at a faster rate than the average company within the same industry". According to https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/29/top-stocks-for-2018-and-2019-and-the-next-few-deca.aspx, growth stocks in 2018 include Nvidia and Amazon. I don't think analyst reports from firms that focus on growth stocks "sets the whole issue firmly into WP:TOOSOON territory". The analyst reports provide significant coverage of the subject and are explicitly listed at Notability (organizations and companies) as permissible sources for establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The material seems to be indiscriminate coverage Furthermore, the most it shows is  that the subject is not yet notable.  DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the sources, it does not appear to pass WP:NCORP, which requires a slightly higher standard than the average topic. Coverage is either brief mentions or from unreliable sources. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  15:56, 4 October 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.