Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairfax Financial Holdings

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 keep. John254 03:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfax Financial Holdings

Delete or Stub Longstanding stub article has been rapidly grown into a blatant corporate brochure for the company. Several editors seem to have WP:COI issues. Mayalld 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Why have you set this article for deletion? The Wikipedia entry for Fairfax had been created about 3 years ago (Aug.13, 2004). Up'till now, the article sparsely described the company. After over 3 years, the article has gotten finally extended with lots of reference links, and now someone is suggesting it for deletion. I don't understand Wikipedia anymore. I'm an independent Wikipedia reader and I think that all information about this company has been compiled from publicly available sources on the internet, like S.E.C. EDGAR files, newspaper and magazine articles. IMHO, it's a shame to put this article for deletion. Please feel free to google every references about this company. If you can do it better, please feel free to make suggestions ? (IntrinsicV) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntrinsicV (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've put it up because there has been a suspicious growth from a stub into an article that simply regurgitates company PR material. I am ambivalent as to whether we (1) return it to a stub, (2) edit the PR speak out to make it a sensible article (3) delete it. If the article gets improved, I'll change my vote to keep Mayalld 12:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I totally agree with your ambivalent character. I think the article should be edited (2), to make it more objective and sensible. Return it to an imperfect(1) or to delete it(3) makes no sense, and should NOT be done, because this wouldn't serve most of us readers and what makes Wikipedia's profoundness. Since I'm a novice about this, I'm a little afraid that I destroy the article main substance. I guess it makes sense that I deleted most of the Corporate Values area. I like to hear more suggestions how this article can become a more objective article. All suggestions are appreciated for a novice editor ? IntrinsicV 14:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets WP:CORP. Take a look at the "Special note: advertising and promotion" section. I don't think #1 and #2 have been done yet. --YUL89YYZ 14:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article I also think it meets WP:CORP. I guess, that the article mostly reflects an unbiased history from publicly available sources (S.E.C. files and newspaper articles). By the way, the suggested opinion that this article carries PR speak is righless, because this company shuns any publicity and never has done any PR, it doesn't even have a PR department. We shouldn't be overanxious, because it seems that some Wiki administrator's are unilluminated and clueless about the history of this company. This article only serves us readers. So anyone who can do it better should rewrite the article and make it an even more truly unprejudiced article. Maybe someone can do it better. I feel sometimes totally helpless. Regards,IntrinsicV 15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy notability criteria. Any content perceived as advertising can easily be removed. --DAJF 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable assets under the wing and thousands of employees but the article could do with some NPOV cutting and more independent citations. Gwen Gale 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a notable business, although the executive biographies are a bit fulsome, and the entire text seems to have NPOV issues. At least it's written in reasonably good English rather than managementese. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The executive biographies of Prem Watsa and Francis Chou are a crucial part of this company, like Bill Gates at Microsoft, and Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway. Prem Watsa is under the top 100 Canadian business leaders with a personal wealth of at least $500 million (CAD) and co-founder Francis Chou runs a $1 billion (CAD) dollar mutual fund group. Both shun any publicity, --no press--, thus they both live a life like Yoda on Dagobah, very reclusive. While perhaps 80% of money managers on Wall Street can't beat the market over long term time periods, yet this outstanding duo of Watsa and Chou have both done it consistently. They are probably in the top 1% league of money managers that have beaten the markets (in the last 21 years, since founding, +24%p.a. growth in book value per share). The history of Fairfax, Hamblin Watsa Investment Council, Prem Watsa and Francis Chou is coherent. We would undermine a vital part of the history of Fairfax for the unaware reader if we leave someting out.IntrinsicV 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, they may well be notable themselves - put their bios into separate pages Mayalld 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At your request, I have added a Prem Watsa stub to Wikipedia.--IntrinsicV 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm nowhere connected with the company, but I feel it is a really bad practice to just keep marking articles for deletion at whim. Wikipedia is for everyone and just for anti-coporate anarchists. If you feel it is a corporate PR stuff, people should work to edit the contents or remove most of the contentious/POV elements. Just deleting the work of someone at whim is never a good practice. I will vote to edit and rewrite from a Neutral POV. Balajiviswanathan 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When adding new comments, please add a new bullet, rather than editing a previous comment Mayalld 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep uhhh what the **** people if it has a New York stock ticker then there damn well better be an article about the company. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Up'till now the random consensus of everbody here is for "Keep"! So I suggest that our venerated Wikipidia administrator would please have the courage to highlight his criticised sentences from the article (copy and paste them to this thread), so we novice readers can understand his points. Maybe he can also show us how we should rewrite the article to make it more sensible without destroying the coherent content. For Disclosure: I'm an independent Wikipedia reader with no associations to the above mentioned company. I don't know anybody from this company nor have I ever worked for this company, and I don't even live in Canada where this company is incorporated. I think that everything that has been gathered and mentioned in this article on this company is from publicly available sources from the internet. It is hard to get a Wikipidia administrator to understand something if his living depends on him not understanding it, and IMHO that's the inconvenient truth. Every fact is verifiable by using an adequate search string on Google. So everybody who thinks that he or she can do a better job, it's fine with me. He or she should put his hands where his or her mouth is, and rewrite the article. And that somebody should pay attention that the coherent knowledge on this company isn't getting lost. So, a sensible and objective article about this company is undeniable insightful. Keep! Respectfully Yours, a novice Wikipedia user.IntrinsicV 09:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an article on a publicly quoted company with over 8000 employess and nearly $7 billion annual revenue, and has just been expanded from a stub into a well sourced encyclopedic article. How can that be twisted into a reason for deletion? Phil Bridger 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not the place to bring cleanup issues on articles whose topics do meet our inclusion guidelines. If there are NPOV problems, tag it for NPOV or clean it up yourself — but the topic does meet WP:CORP, and independent sources are present. Cleanup, but keep. Bearcat 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see how some might interpret certain aspects as too subjective, so as someone said, mark them as such and clean them up. Please don't delete it. Look at the clearly-encyclopedic topic on Pan Am World Airways. Surely we don't have to wait for a company to go out of business before we can read about it without suspicion of conflicts of interest. As an investor it's difficult to find unbiased objective research on the internet. The company itself can't provide it, and who is more objective and reliable than Wikipedia? You set the standard of reliability because of the public opportunity to object and provide alternative points of view. This is a valuable service to the internet world and should be maintained and managed with the same high standards as any other potentially controversial topic. Sweeper Bob (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable and well-referenced. AFD is evil, let's speedy this and tag for clean-up. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For Disclosure: Since our highly respected administrator hasn't come up with further opinions. I have even restored the coherent and interesting trivia stuff about this company. It's up to other Wiki users to freely edit it. I also suggest that our venerated Wikipedia administrator does some homework, takes the challenge and verifies the facts recited in this article. IntrinsicV (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should never have been listed for deletion, in my view. Google News reveals multiple news hits. A multi-billion dollar corporation and industry leader (in Canada) that more than meets WP:CORP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2007 (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.