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 delete. joe decker ^talk 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mudrick Capital Management

[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, relies on self-published sources & sources failing to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is covered in reliable sources. This article alone, published by Bloomberg, in and of itself establishes notability by detailing the company. Please let me know if you'd like to see a list of additional news sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side note - as the creator of this page, the original draft I uploaded contained unencyclopedic language but I did go through and trim it out. Meatsgains (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Wikipedia is not a directory to be filled up with PR-style business listings of this nature. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific in regards to the page's "PR-style business listing"? Meatsgains (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't need to be more specific - it's only a stub article, and the entire thing reads like a PR-based entry in a business directory. It's nothing more than routine coverage, when Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia. This is the problem with creating business articles from the Requested Articles process - people tend to focus on PR-type sources like Bloomberg's business listing section instead and it shows. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the Bloomberg business listing is essentially a PR source, the company is detailed in reliable sources for notable investments and ranked on Forbes' Top Hedge Funds of 2016. Meatsgains (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable investment management firm with no indications of notability or significance. Sources are not there to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are two Bloomberg articles (one source) that definitely help to establish notabality as they appear to be neutral. The articles on the acquisition of the e-cigarette company fail WP:ORGINFO. This one is close. If another reference that meets the criteria can be found (and I haven't managed to find one) it will sway my vote but for now it remains Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 18 April 2017 (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.