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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gracy Title Company

[edit]

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

Having searched various databanks available to me, I have no reason to believe that this article meets the required notability requirements. It is also a recreation of a page that had previously been deleted, and the evidence on the talk page of the editor who created this version indicates he was the creator of the previous version(s) as well. I believe that the article should be deleted on the failure to clearly demonstrate that the subject meets notability requirements. I also believe that there is sufficient grounds to request that the article be salted to prevent further recreation until and unless notability is clearly established. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was originally Speedy Deleted in the first few mins of it being created while it was being place into content section. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relevance, is first in it's industry in the state at the time of the industries development nationwide regarding this kind of invest product. See list of comparable articles: List of United States insurance companies. Article is similar and comparable to the majority of the industry related articles on Wikipedia. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that the only citation in the entire article is to the rather less-than-important factoid that it is the oldest title company in Texas. Also regarding the later point that it is similar to other articles, I believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. And, of course, it has yet to be demonstrated that the entire body of those other articles is completely unreferenced, as is the case in this article. The article is almost completely unsourced, except for that one factoid in the lead, and the single source provided probably does not establish notability as per the relevant notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes Carter, you are once again acknowledged. I do not see that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually applies here accurately. The company has been contacted for further source material regarding independent publications over the last 140 years. Awaiting response from their clerk. General policy to improve not delete WP:IMPERFECT -- Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working under the premise of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to achieve the best end result. The article is not perfect WP:PERFECT but the company is more notable and has more significance than most other companies in its category here and is better written. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to believe WP:IMPERFECT applies in this instance, actually. WP:BURDEN seems to apply here though. Honestly, I cannot see that there is any reasonable basis for us to be obliged to wait for COI input from the company itself to establish it's notability, particularly when WP:N is not met. If we were to accept such arguments, then I am fairly sure we would be swamped with similar such requests from multiple editors, not only this one. I see no reason for us to be obligated to wait for an indeterminate period of time for a group with a clear COI regarding itself to provide the indications of notability that the author of the article has not provided. If the material is presented by the regular close of this discussion, fine, that is another matter. But I can see no reason for us to prolong the discussion simply because, basically, one editor who insists on the importance of his own work cannot or will not himself work to ensure it meets our criteria. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not write or source the article. Another editor did and she has been contacted. Please stop your assailment. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote this article as the result of information I found when researching the title insurance industry; specifically the merging of abstracts and insurance to create the new industry of title insurance. This was the first representation in the state of Texas, and affected insurance and property in the state of Texas. This was my first article.--Shale81 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently searching for independent sources as requested. The company has historical foundations and helped to create (and merge policy for) the title insurance industry in Texas and the United States. The company is independently operated under its parent company Stewart Information Services Corporation, which is publicly traded.--Shale81 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment": I am not an employee or directly affiliated with the company or its parent corporation. I only utilized the company records as a direct source for information regarding abstracts and land title, and independent documented sources.--Shale81 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The COI comment was in regards to the statement that one editor contacted the company itself, asking it for sources to verify notability. The company itself would, clearly, have a COI problem regarding an article about itself. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logic dictates that the company itself, would after almost a century and half, know where independent sources about itself would be found. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge'. Every US financial company even in the 19th century is documented, but don't expect the material to be on line. Any business librarian can help you find it. I was confused initially because the infobox says NYSE, but the listing is not for this , but the parent company. All NYSE companies are N, as shown in multiple AfDs, so the default if you do not find enough fora separate article.is to merge with Stewart Law and Land Title Company. Perhaps that should have been suggested instead of an AfD .

No objections to a creation of a parent article, the Stewart company, and merging the relevant content there. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stewart Information Services Corporation. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 18:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Given that it's been owned for years by Stewart Information Services Corporation, it makes sense that this content should be on that page as Grady no longer exists as a standalone company. However, be aware that SISC is NOT the company with which Grady has merged. From what I can tell, Grady has merged with other subsidiaries of SISC called Stewart Title Company of Austin, Prosperity Title Co. and Advantage Title Co. forming a new company, Gracy Title -- A Stewart Company, of which SISC is a majority shareholder. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gracy Title does exist and is in fact still in operation (see www.Gracytitle.com). Although it is a subsidiary of Stewart, Gracy has its own offices; likewise, Stewart Title maintains its own Stewart Title offices in other locations. This practice happens frequently in acquisitions of local, independently operated companies. Many, many companies are owned by Time Warner, for example, but maintain their independent identities. They are not merged with the Time Warner page, but are rather considered "assets" of that company. These subsidiary companies (such as HBO, Turner Broadcasting, DC Comics, etc.) are owned but not operated directly by Time Warner. --Shale81 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the information that the original article was speedy deleted while in the process of being created and edited, I think the request to salt this article (made in the original nomination) is extreme and unnecessary. No evidence has been offered to suggest that the author would not comply with the consensus of this process. Nor is it WP:COI to use information provided by the company as long as the information itself was an independent reliable source. It would be helpful if some would more discuss here than try so hard to dismiss the comments of others. Consensus is often difficult enough without starting the conversation with a bite. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge It is an unresolved question what to do with earlier corporations now adsorbed into others. I think that if they were once notable we certainly need to cover them all, as notability is not temporary. The question is whether this is best done in separate articles. I think the information will be lost if we merge. Though there is justification for considering each legal entity a notable organization in its own right, this probably should not apply to mere name changes, except when necessary for clarity. But when its a case of a true merger or anything more complicated, I think separating them is the best way to keep it clear. Alternatively, if merged, it needs to be specifically stated and maintained that we keep the full content. The question would be whether to do a more limited merge with the direct merged company, Stewart Land and Title, rather than StewartInformation Services Corporation. Again, its to prevent the information from being lost. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic has enought reliable source material to support a stand alone article under WP:GNG. The article for the acquiring company can include a Wikipedia:Summary style section for Gracy Title Company. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:35, 7 September 2012 (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.