Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Securian Financial Group

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. ✗plicit 12:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Securian Financial Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged as possibly a COI article for more than four years - all sources linked are either from the company itself or aren't independent. Could not find reliable and significant sources myself LR.127 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, United States of America, and Minnesota. LR.127 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 144 year-old company. A Fortune 500 company in 2023 and some other years. There are several articles that establish notability: 1, 2, 3, 4, and hundreds of hits at newspapers.com, since the company is so old.98.149.219.81 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of those are not great sources for notability - covereager is essentially a press release, Business insider is a sponsored review. It also looks like they by-and-large fail WP:AUD/WP:CORPDEPTH- being mostly local and routine coverage. I do think that there probably *should* be significant coverage of this company because of its size and age, but haven't seen it yet. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No stance on notability yet, I need some more time to go through the coverage. But the vast majority of the newspaper hits I found were advertisements from the company, and also some marriage announcements / obits of people who had worked there. I can compile some clippings of non-promo coverage later because there was some, but I would not use the number of hits as a metric here. Zzz plant (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:48, 11 March 2025 (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.