Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Store Capital

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 no consensus. A little bit of HEY also involved. Daniel (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Store Capital

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion during New Page Patrol. Previously deleted. IMO deeply fails wp:notability. Zero suitable or even near-suitable sources. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)-[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet notability guideline. All the sources from Google search is coming from websites like Seeking Alpha, Nasdaq, FOX43 etc. None of these seems reliable. VincentGod11 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Nasdaq and Seeking Alpha not reliable? Please check my comments below. I have found 8 new good citations. Jaxarnolds (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a $9 billion market capitalization publicly traded real estate investment trust, and certainly has reliable sources to demonstrate notability, per WP:LISTED. Its stock is a component of a major U.S. Stock market index, the S&P 400. How is nasdaq.com, the website of Nasdaq, Inc. not a reliable source? Plus the Phoenix Business Journal here; many other sources. And when was this article previously deleted? (not that that would matter in the slightest). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether that reference is a reliable source. The question is whether the topic has in depth coverage by reliable sources in accordance with the wp notability quidelines. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another generic soulless retail REIT. Its entire website feels like something created for a combined marketing/web development project that doesn't answer the question "but what do you actually do?!?!" in plain English. Nate • (chatter) 06:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. -Hatchens (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to search sources but can't find much even after 15mins of search . Fails WP:NCORP. Mtpos (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding! did you actually search? check my comment below. Jaxarnolds (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I am seeing lot's of news about them in Google that are indepth such as fool.com 1, marketbeat, seekingalpha, fool.com 2, azcentral 1 (behind paywall, but appears indepth), azcentral 2, americanbanker, NASDAQ and many more. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Jaxarnolds (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the flurry of links, IMO if you would like really make/state your case on the question at hand, how about finding/selecting 2 independent RS's that have in-depth coverage of Store Capital? North8000 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are all good, but these 5 are the best NASDAQ, americanbanker, azcentral. fool.com 1, fool.com 2. If you change your mind now, you can withdraw the AFD nomination. I have also added some other citations to the article. Jaxarnolds (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are references that you added since the AFD. Those new references are better. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a lot of crap sources such as Motley Fool and Seeking Alpha (both of which put out too much stock-picking churnalism for me to give weight to any of their articles). There's also some coverage of run-of-the-mill business transactions, like the Berkshire one mentioned above, and a real estate transaction in the business press. And the local newspaper, The Arizona Republic, has covered them, though those are behind a paywall. (And some "Reit magazine" discussed them in what might not have been an advertorial.) It is enough coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. For public companies, the best references for establishing notability are analyst report. Zack's provides an analyst report which you can download (for no obligation!) by providing your name and email address. There is evidence that at least one other analysts, BTIG Research, also provides analysis reports to their clients on this company - for example this presentation includes in-depth information on slide 42. In my opinion, there are sufficient references, topic passes NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the newly found and added references. But I am not withdrawing my nomination so that others can fully decide. North8000 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.