Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clements Worldwide

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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clements Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I do not see any notability for this small insurance office. It has won no awards besides a "2010 Communicator Award", by the "International Academy of Visual Arts" [1] for "interactive excellence" , which seems to be one of the approximately 400 such awards given that single year [2] (besides an similar number in each of 5 other categories) and is consequently totally meaningless. Other things claimed in that section are mere listings or nominations. (One is actually the fact that they nominated their own VP for an award he did not win.)

The bulk of the article is promotional content devoted to the trivial $15,000 or so of charitable contributions it makes annually, including awards named after itself.

All the sources of pure PR, and could hardly be otherwise.

I apologize for wasting the time of editors here at AfD, but my speedy for A7 and G11 was removed. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well I thought some of the article could be kept, and a more balanced viewpoint handled by other sources such as this one which talks about their lack of responses to customers and general nochalant attitude, unfortunately that's a self-published source so it can't be used. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone's feedback on this and I can certainly understand the issue with the inclusion of the awards. I'll remove that section shortly. I decided to include it because this was my first new article and the article wizard was stressing independent sources. I googled their name and information about the awards was the most common citation on 3rd party sites. Good learning experience though!

Even without the award section, however, I still believe they fulfill the notability criteria. They have a profile on Bloomberg ^[1] and have offices in at least 2 countries (they're not a local yokel Main Street insurance shop). So, while they may not have as much published on them as a BUPA, who does a heck of a lot more than international insurance, Clements is still very well-known amongst the people who need that type of specialty insurance.

And speaking anecdotally as a now retired member of the expatriate community, Clements Worldwide is a very well-known name in English-speaking circles. If you ask an expatriate who some insurance providers are, Clements would probably be one of the top 3 listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarnyardWill (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Slon02 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep A very notable specialty insurance company. Manifestly notable and very substantially covered in sources dealing with this field. It is also known and well established (historic?). That insurance, particularly this niche, isn't Manga or ComicCon related should not be held against the subject matter. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hokay, looking through the sources, I see the following, in order :

1. Company overview - a primary source
2. [3] - looks like a press release.
3. Facing the gauntlet - this article is about building in Iraq, and Clements gets a cursory half-sentence mention. Not significant coverage
4. [4] - another primary source
5. [5] - is about Robert S Clements, not his company, which gets a brief one sentence mention. Not significant coverage, and notability is not inherited
6. Clements International Joins Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers - another press release

... I could go on, but hopefully I've got the message across. DGG has debunked some of the other sources at the top of the AfD. None of these sources really explain why Clements is important or significant to the layman reader from a neutral point of view. The above source I gave, whilst being a consumer forum and hence not reliable, gives strong negative criticism towards Clements as a UK car insurer, implying they are complete and utter rip off merchants. I would expect a good source to mention something like this as well as the basic company info. Summary : I'm staying with "delete". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company has been covered extensively and coverage of its founder certainly is relevant to the article. You obviously know very little about the insurance industry and insurance for expatriates. The company is very notable and has been in the news recently for its acquisition of British insurance businesses. What you think coverage in industry publications "looks like" is irrelevant, but you are correct that an internet post from an unhappy customer doesn't belong in the article (and I notice you've misrepresented what's actually said at that site as well). Here is a link to their coverage by the Better Business Bureau if you'd like to include that. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When people loudly assert "x is very notable" and start to comment on their fellow editors' knowledge (or lack of it), experience tells me I'm usually onto something. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly believe your knowledge as an editor is sufficient and that you're making an honest inquiry into this article. However, I do believe that you're improperly characterizing some of the sources I cited. Expatriate and other specialty insurances are a subject that aren't frequently discussed in readily available online publications. Most of what's written on these types of companies is going to involve acquisitions/expansions, which will invariably read like a press release, such as what I already cited and things like this article on expathealth.org discussing their expansion into the Middle East market^[2]. Finding other types of articles that offer more than a cursory mention, if they exist, will probably be found behind the paywall of one of the industry's niche publications, such as this Africa Insurance Review article discussing the impact of a Kenyan election on political risk insurance.^[3]

Your reliance on the source you shared when trying to determine the quality and character of the company is also a bit overweighted, in my opinion. My personal dealings while I was abroad were fantastic, but even without that anecdotal evidence you can find more positive mentions or citations that establish their credibility as trustworthy company in this insurance niche than the one negative forum post you found. As mentioned, their BBB rating^[4] is an A+ and they appear to frequently present or sponsor conferences related to insurance, such as the Dubai International Humanitarian Aid & Development (DIHAD) conference^[5], Annual Middle East and Africa Insurance Summit^[6], and the Totally Expat show ^[7].

Expatriate resource websites will also frequently include Clements in their lists, such as the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA)^[8], ExpatWomen^[9], Expatriates.com^[10], and Expat Focus^[11]. As I've said, those in the expat community are sure to know the Clements name. So, despite having relatively little published in comparison to a BUPA or a Cigna, they're fairly well cited and favorably viewed as a speciality insurer. BarnyardWill (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2013 (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.