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. Sandstein 18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantex[edit]

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

This is an advertisement dressed as an article. There is nothing to distinguish this company from many other similar companies, no evidence of notability, no justification for being the subject of an encyclopaedia article. Specifically it fails WP:ORG, WP:ARTSPAM Andyjsmith (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that some of the edits here have exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the promotional tone. However, notability is well-supported. This company has gotten quite a lot of independent—and often skeptical—news coverage about its unusual, and controversial, offerings of participation in specific athletes' future earnings. Some examples are already included in the footnotes of the article[1][2][3][4]; much, much more can be seen in the results of the searches linked above, such as [5]. A possibility here would be to retitle this article to something like Athlete IPO and refocus the text to emphasize the investment concept, rather than the company. (I might have alternatively suggested incorporating this into the article on the somewhat similar concept of celebrity bond, but that article is heavily focused on the monetization of copyright and other intellectual property assets, which doesn't apply to the athlete offerings.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, but the article is so firmly based around Fantex that what you're asking for is a ground-up rewrite. Let's face it, this is a brokerage company trading only four stocks.

A quick word about the supposedly reliable references:

#1 is self published

#2,5 are subscription only

#3,4,9,13 are about the wisdom of investing in sports stars. Fantex is mentioned but isn't the subject of the article.

#6 is just the usual Bloomberg data and PR

#16,17 is a genuine story which notes that "Last summer... Vernon Davis said he expected that soon, “the whole world is going to believe” in Fantex. The company isn’t quite there yet, but it’s still chugging along"

#8,10,11,12,14,15,18-21 are based on press releases

Andyjsmith (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I also found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but nothing for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe I am looking at the wrong informatino but there are plenty of reliable sources that cover the topic in depth [6], [7], [8]. Also, this comment, "nothing to distinguish this company from many other similar companies" strikes me curious as I cannot find a similar company. If someone can point one out I would be happy to have a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my sense (as a regular reader of coverage about the business of sports) is that Fantex is the only company with any substantial public presence in this sector. As I mentioned above, I share the nominator's concern that this article has become more promotional in tone than it was, or than it should be, but I would prefer to see this fixed rather than deleted, because what they do is certainly notable, and even interesting. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources above appear to be significant coverage. Problems with the article should be fixed by editing not deleting. Polequant (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. Company does not have significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education and is just another company doing regular business. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:52, 19 October 2015 (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.