Draft talk:Rocket Companies Inc.

Move from Investor Day user page.

This article has now been moved from its workspace in the Investor Day user page. Backup version has been pasted in the original page at User:Investor Day

Investor Day (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

Next, I recommend adding more information about each subsidiary in the relevant section. This will provide a space for subsidiary companies to be fully explained, even if they aren't notable enough to merit a standalone article as is the case with many of the companies owned by Rocket Companies other than Rocket Mortgage and select others. Investor Day (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Comment: The comparison of this parent to Alphabet is not a good one. Wikipedia is based on sourcing, not similarities. If that were the case, any parent company would qualify for a Wikipedia page. Keep in mind that notability is not WP:INHERENT. Sources must meet WP:ORGCRIT which the ones here do not (press releases, company directories, company website). Based on the talk page message this also sounds like it would be moving into WP:COATRACK territory for its subsidiaries. CNMall41 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're correct in your reasoning, but I believe Rocket Companies Inc. is a large enough and relevant enough organization that it dignified its own article. A major subsidiary of it, Rocket Mortgage, has its own article as well, which I also believe is dignified. Meanwhile, other lesser-known subsidiaries that do not deserve their own article should be stored here. With that in mind, the collective relevance and notability of Rocket Companies Inc. (including Rocket Mortgage) and its lesser-known subsidiaries certainly deserves an article. What you seem to be debating though, is whether or not Rocket Companies Inc. is relevant based on the Wikipedia secondary source notability criteria. While this article needs more citations from reliable secondary sources, a simple Google search of Rocket Companies Inc. will show that there are countless news articles regarding Rocket Companies Inc. and its subsidiaries. Moving forward, independent sources should be added to the information present to show its notability and then be submitted for AfC.
In short: Rocket Companies Inc. certainly is a notable organization. When debating whether or not this article meets the Wikipedia secondary-source notability criteria, a Google search will show that it does. You are, however, correct in implying that this article requires more citations to independent articles.
Investor Day (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving comments here. S0091 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Investor Day and @CNMall41 I moved the comments here given the back-and-forth. Investor Day, lots of Google hits does not mean anything as the sources need to meet WP:ORGCRIT and it is not uncommon for a company to have mountains of press releases. routine coverage, unreliable sources, based on what the company says or not in-depth. Recently I researched a company that had over a thousand hits on ProQuest but none useful. I am not saying that is case here but my advice is to only use the best sources, those with a named author who is a staff member of a reputable publication (not a contributor post. unnamed staff or the like) and has done their own independent in-depth research, analysis, etc. about the company with little input by the company. S0091 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"large enough and relevant enough organization" is not part of the WP:NCORP guideline unfortunately. Size of a company has no relevance on Wikipedia notability. It is ALL about sourcing, not comparison with other companies (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). If you can provide some sourcing that meets WP:ORGCRIT I will have a look but I did a WP:BEFORE and do not believe this would survive AfD and would need to take it there should it be moved to the mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's kind of what I was trying to say in my argument before. Personally, I believe it is relevant enough to merit an article, however, I understand that to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it needs to meet the sourcing requirement you referenced. Yes, I know many of those articles are press releases, but I did find several independent and credible sources for information on Rocket Companies. Essentially, I'm saying that Rocket Companies is big enough and relevant enough outside of Wikipedia, that it's likely that the correct sourcing requirements are met with enough in-depth research. I will certainly work to add these sources to this article and, of course, would appreciate any help in doing so. Investor Day (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]