Pruette

Speedy deletion of Egan-Jones Ratings Company

A tag has been placed on Egan-Jones Ratings Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Egan Jones

You wrote: "Egan Jones. On the page describing Egan-Jones Ratings Company you have posted the following: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. Following this link wiki suggests that the use of this label is for the following purposes: Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which there is no relevant discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution. In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time. So please help me understand your specific concerns with the neutrality of the article posted, or remove your dispute statement please. CP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pruette (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)"

How about: "Egan-Jones is wholly supported by investors to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest in accessing credit quality. While E-J is funded by "subscribers" (not all of which may be investors), and while E-J says this is to avoid conflicts of interest, issuers aren't the only conflicts of interest. Also, it seems quite possible that another reason they are funded by subscribers is because issuers won't pay for E-J's ratings (since all of the other NRSROs that were subscriber-based changed to an issuer-based business model once there was any investor interest in their ratings). Likewise, although there is more there now on the SEC charges, it previously was just venting by an E-J staffer.

That said, it is much better now than it was when I put that tag in. Until very recently, it was clearly just an ad for Egan-Jones. Epstein's Mother (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)