Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandler O'Neill and Partners

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. W.marsh 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandler O'Neill and Partners

Delete boutique investment banking firm. Lost one-third of its staff in the WTC during 9/11, firm not otherwiise notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Memorial pages already exist for its staff victims here. Ohconfucius 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I find this subject notable. New York Times article is a good reference. Just because a list exists of 9/11 victims doesn't mean those victims or the companies they represented are not notable. --Oakshade 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable firm. There are many more important financial institutions than this that don't have articles and rightly so. --SandyDancer 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment And there are many less important financial institutions that do have articles. I think for both POVs it's best to keep the Wikipedia:Pokémon test out of this (interesting that it was used to delete in this case). --Oakshade 02:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I also find this subject notable. --Fang Aili talk 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How? Is this just your personal opinion, or have you applied the WP:CORP criteria? If the latter, how does this subject satisfy the criteria? A good argument citing sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied will work. "I think that it's notable." will generally not. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I was working on it. Comment: according to this, this company was the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, fulfilling criteria #1 of WP:CORP. --Fang Aili talk 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. I fail to see the notability of this firm. Xdenizen 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Let us address WP:CORP. The sad fact that a tragic loss of life struck this firm heavily is not, in itself, a measure of notability. There are *not* multiple non-trivial published works that address what the firm does. The only possible notability it had, however briefly, was when it was nearly destroyed. I'm afraid it doesn't meet notability for me, based on how I see WP:CORP. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Additional possible notability evidence: 106 unique hits in Google news, all of them in 2006. This at least shows that non-trivial organizations like CNNMoney.com and the Boston Globe quote financial analysts from Sandler O'Neill. However I'm not sure if that translates into additional notability, because I don't know much about the financial industry. --Fang Aili talk 21:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- I have to point out that Sandy Dancer, above, is being defeatist. If there are more important financial institutions than this one that don't have their articles, then those also deserve articles. Let's get busy and write them. We aren't using up paper, after all. This is a very notable firm, regardless of the 9/11. The fact that it also became part of history on that date works in favor of its notability, though, not against. --Christofurio 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable firm, and it is a well-established precedent that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Moreschi 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Amazed this article is being listed for deletion. It is one of the best known firms of its kind on Wall Street precisely because of its massive losses on Sept. 11.--Mantanmoreland 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't be kept I thought I would look at the article to see whether it might be kept. Unfortunately, as written there is nothing written about the company which would suggest it merits a place in wikipedia. Obviously the entry concentrates on the World trade centre terrorist actions. I'm sorry to sound cold, but as a user of Wikipedia, I would quite like to have some information on the casualties of the event, and that is what the article must provide - but I wouldn't be looking for this article under this name, so it would be almost senseless to put it in. I don't know whether it exists, but I can't see a problem with a page detailing the statistics of the event, which companies, were involved, how many people in each, where their offices were, etc. THere is a story to be told, and valuable information but this is not the way to enter it. --Mike 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I read Mantanmoreland after I wrote above. I think the criteria I would apply is that the company has been used as an example by many reports - at the very least there ought to be an explanation of why this company has become an example and several references to reports. That doesn't come across in the article, it sounds as if it is one of several hundred. --Mike 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, the article does not have to provide a list of terrorist casualties of the company to show notability. If you would like to see a list of casualties, you can make a request on the article's Talk page, but that has nothing to do with AfD. Besides, outside of that tragedy this company is presently a real and important international financial company in the investment world. Just a casual recent google news search and you can already find numerous business/finance articles where this company or its representatives are consulted, sourced and quoted as valuable financial analysts. [1][2][3][4][5] --Oakshade 00:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The company's losses and response to 9/11 ALONE make it worthy of any article, being the subject of countless national news stories -- stories explicitly about the company and not just the employees who died -- including Fortune in 2002 ("Rebuilding Sandler O'Neill: The response to terrorism").
In addition, a quick look through Google News gets 96 hits -- including several companies issuing press releases touting their upcoming presentations at a Sandler O'Neill Financial Services Conference [6] [7] [8] [] -- clearly, they think being connected with Sandler O'Neill burnishes their images. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Financial factoids from their web site, which I'm sure I can verify from third-party sources when I get the time:
  • From January 2003 to March 2005, the firm participated in raising more than $66.4 billion for its clients in 155 offerings of debt and equity and managed or co-managed 100 offerings aggregating over $36 billion.
  • From 2002 to March 2005, we were ranked #1 in the U.S. for bank and thrift equity raising by volume and by number of transactions. [9]
  • We are one of the largest market makers in NASDAQ financial stocks, and have access to all major stock exchanges. [10]
  • The firm is one of the most experienced in this sector, advising on more than 464 transactions with an aggregate principal amount of $22.6 billion in the last ten years [1996-2005]. [11]
On the face of it, doesn't sound the least "non-notable" to me. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the stats cited above, the key words here are "participated", "co-managed" and "advising". Bank deals such as debt and equity offerings typically have multiple banks and financial advisory firms participating in the deal. It is not unusual to have 3, 4 or 5 (or significantly more in syndicated loan deals for instance) large major banks (such as Citigroup or Deutsche Bank or Merill Lynch) participating at different levels for different fees (Lead Manager, Senior Co-Manager, Junior Co-Manager, Lead Advisor, Co-Advisor, Bookrunner, Documentation Agent etc etc) plus smaller firms such as Sandler dealing with less capital intensive or specialized aspects of the deal which the larger institutions decline because the fees offered are too small (major banks turn down business all the time when the fees are too small). So "participating in raising $66.4bn for its clients" means that Sandler took part in $66.4bn worth of deals which larger players had the major roles. A better indicator would Sandler's actual earnings (a small fraction of the value of the deals). Bwithh 06:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply Your analysis is of course correct. However, what these numbers indicate is that Sandler is a player even if it is not a top-bracket firm. That and combined with its Sept. 11 losses make this, in my view, a definite "keep."--Mantanmoreland 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Wikipedia is not a memorial" doesn't mean that notable deaths must be ignored in determining notability of a company. The WP:CORP guideline naturally focuses on the routine case; it shouldn't be interpreted to mean that a single momentous event can never be the basis for keeping an article about a company. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mantanmoreland, and by applying the "passer-by" notability test. (Yeah, ok, I just made it up). I'm just passing by, and I've heard of them...ergo, they're notable. (I'm fully aware that this test in no way comports with WP:Notability.) Seriously, though - if this company really does fail WP:Corp, I'd say that this is a good time to ignore all rules. --TheOtherBob 19:02, 13 November 2006 (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.