Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Loan




 * 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   Moot (non-admin closure), article speedily deleted as WP:CSD & WP:CSD Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

True Loan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nom. I initially speedy deleted this as (I thought) blatant advertising for Ajene Watson, LLC; however, the creator has insisted that this is not spam and just happens to be about a particular company's product. Since someone's put a fair bit of work into this, and if it's not spam it would be unfair to delete it, I've undeleted and AfD'd the article to get a consensus as to whether this is or isn't a valid article.  – iride  scent  03:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge appropriate content with Securities lending and redirect to that page, as "stock loan" already does. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep (see below).


 * Securities Lending is a completely different industry than the one referred to in my poorly written article. Securities Lending is a practice where broker dealers lend each other large blocks of stock for the purposes of shorting.  A stock loan as it is mentioned in my article, is the practice of creating and funding loans that are collateralized by stock.  Unfortunately the word "stock loan" and "securities lending" contextually can mean the same thing and participants from either industry use either phrase at will when referring to their own industry.  The True Loan platform is a lending model that can only be used for the purpose of creating a loan that is collateralized by stock.  OsirisB (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This does seem to be a WP:ADVERT case. As far as I understand, the article is about a particular financial product offered by a particular company, Ajene Watson, LLC, or even its division, TRUE LENDING PLATFORMS. If we were talking about a common financial instrument widely used in the market by many providers, it might deserve a separate article. As it is, the subject might deserve some coverage in an article about Ajene Watson, LLC (WP currently does not have such an article). The references and links listed in the article do not reference the term and I do not see evidence of its independent notability, per WP:N either. Of course, the phrase, "true loan" is fairly common and doing a googlenews search produces a bit of a phonebook consisting of apparent false positives. But filtered googlenews searches, such as  "True Loan" "AJENE WATSON" and "True Loan" "TRUE LENDING PLATFORMS" produce zero hits. Given that there is no indication of notability and coverage by third-party reliable sources, I do not think this even merits a merge to Securities lending for the moment. Delete per WP:ADVERT. Nsk92 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Ajene Watson et al might be a suitable topic for an article based on his unique accomplishments in the finance industry, and could probably put something together on this in the near future. As far as widespread use, that is exactly what the platform was made for.  The biggest hurdle is that the platform is already beginning to be used by several private banking entities, however this is a niche industry utilizing private loans with no filings.  Because of this, you will never open up your paper and read about the True Loan platform, regardless of the fact that the avaerage loan amount is north of 5 million dollars and the marketplace is ridiculously large.  I can tell you from having met with Ajene and worked with him closely on several occasions is that one of the most frustrating things has been to receive recognition for the platform because almost no one knows what the heck it is or how it works.  Perhaps I can scale tha article way back and rebuild it with more references come along?


 * Keep Switched to Delete Rather encyclopedic and I see much potential for improvement. We just need to get some good writers to get working on this.-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 05:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Fails WP:N-- Xp54321 ( Hello! •  Contribs ) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on your opinion? There appears to be no coverage of the topic by independent reliable sources, as required by WP:N and the article talks about a financial product produced by a single company. Why is that an encyclopedic topic? Nsk92 (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No independent reliable sources?Mmmh...-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 05:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ADVERT. The concept's title is fully captialized, and the article sounds very promotional. And the clincher is that the first G-result leads to this site, where the concept is registered as a trademark with the ™ mark, and other results (429 exact hits) are just referring to other loans in general.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ADVERT, as it's blatantly an advertisement - and it's reasonable to suppose that it's on WP mostly so that the sellers can tell potential customers, "But of course it's legitimate - look at the huge article about it on Wikipedia!" -- Macspaunday (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Several lenders are out there who are allowed to use the True Loan name and literature. As far as it's legitimacy, there are about 13 opinion letters from several experts and attornies, not to mention an ex SEC enforcement attorney that have declared that the platform is completly compliant, so a Wiki article is not neccessary to back it up.  If it is blatantly an advertisement, who exactly am I selling to?  I have been in this industry for many years.  If I wanted to sell the product I could simply send out emails and direct mail pieces to my database of over 40,000 contacts holding in excess of $1MM in securities.  You have to understand, that this lending platform took a ten year old industry and is almost turning it upside down overnight.  I get calls from the SEC about once every six months checking in to make sure that I am not bending or breaking any rules.  When this program came out, it made it virtually impossible to do anything nefarious, which is something that many of us had been waiting for for a long time.  If deletion is needed, then fine.  I will go back though and try and write a beter piece and cite better references, as there will be more coming along slowly in the future.  OsirisB (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could post some of those letters (with full signatures and letterheads) on your own site, instead of asking everyone to take your word for it? Wikipedia depends on verifiable information, not marketing claims (like "turning it upside down almost overnight") that don't seem to be supported by any independent news organizations, etc. If an industry really is being turned upside down almost overnight, surely there must be some independent commentary about it, because that's an extraordinary thing to happen. Meanwhile, deletion seems appropriate. Macspaunday (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The opinion letters Mr. Watson has have so much proprietary information and were so expensive to have produced would make it impossible for them to ever see the light of day. While the platform can be used by anyone to whom the technology has been licensed, it is not "open source", and only lenders and institutions who have signed bulletproof non-disclosure agreements are ever allowed to view these docs.  I know for a fact that he spent over $200,000 dollars just to get the reviews and letters produced, so obviously that is out.  Based on the responses I am getting on this page, I think I know what I need to do to create a better article, which is make it more easily referenced and verifiable, and I think with a bit more work that will be easy to accomplish.  Til then I understand that if it needs to go. OsirisB (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could simply post the paragraphs in which outside experts confirm that the scheme is legally compliant, together with the names and credentials of those who say so. Surely that's the kind of information that you want to get out there. Without it, you're asking people to take your word for everything, since there seems to be absolutely no publicly-available verifiable independent confirmation of your claims. All this can only benefit you, as well as benefiting Wikipedia. Macspaunday (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will work on that as well, but the more we talk about this the more I see where I went wrong with my approach. I can probably get some excerpts that I can attach names to, however verifying this for Wiki purposes will still be impossible if not difficult.  I know that there is beginning to be some media interest and a few publications have expressed a willingness to write about the platform, which might be a good starting place to use for references that are at least somewhat credible, and easily referenceable.  Til then I want to pull down the article and start over, so do I do this myself, or is there someone out there willing to do it for me?  Also, thank you to all of you who have spent your valuable time in this matter, I appreciate your insights and guidance. OsirisB (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the decision is made to delete the article, you can request that it is "userfied" into a sandbox of your own, e.g. User:OsirisB/Sandbox or User:OsirisB/True Loan. There, you will be able to work on it at your leisure until such time as you feel it is ready to re-enter the main article space. When it is, I suggest having another Wikipedian in good standing take a look at it first, in order to help judge whether the issues outlined here have been overcome. To request userfication, simply request it here. All the best, Steve  T • C 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep tentatively per OsirisB. This user seems knowledgeable about the topic and intent on improving the article. No reason to assume that it isn't well on its way to becoming wiki-worthy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to assume that the user who wrote the article is someone who is extremely closely associated with the person who created and is selling this trademarked financial instrument. No one else could possibly know as much about it. The article an advertisement for a very specific financial product, sold apparently by only one company, about which there seems to be absolutely no independent sources of information. Are you absolutely sure that you think it ought to be kept? Macspaunday (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that I can WP:AGF enough to think it should be tentatively kept. If the article doesn't improve, and no independent sources show up, then it can always be AFD'd again. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete The "history" section is mostly cut and pasted from one of the references. The rest is probably copyvio as well, but I'm not investing the time to locate it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (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.