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. Although sources were found and presented in the debate, the general agreement is they were insufficient to prove notability. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential Capital Management[edit]

Quintessential Capital Management (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)

Promotional article created by an SPA about a subject that is borderline. They were involved with reporting irregularities at another company that did cause that firm to file for bankruptcy, but most of the coverage that exists about them is one line in larger reports about the other firm being caught. The Independent's coverage is one line and refers to them as "little known", which I think helps shore up the argument that they are not a significant player. WP:CORPDEPTH combined with the promotional factors make this article fail WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "little-known" the fund was probably little known prior to the Globo events. After the Globo event, with the fund mentioned in several top newspapers and the portfolio manager invited to speak in several high-profile events, the fund is now quite well known, at least in Italy, in the UK and within the hedge fund community.Yakag (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • La Repubblica, Italy's second largest newspaper, has covered Quintessential in a full article which, though in Italian, describes the fund and its activities just as much as the Globo event itself: The 007 Fund and even calls it with the nickname "the 007 fund".
Again, in this old WSJ article, Gregory Zuckerman from the WSJ actually seeks out Mr. Grego, as a representative of Quintessential, to ask opinions about market conditions. They would not do that if the fund were not a significant player.
https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=16353&mn=26761&pt=msg&mid=15260267Yakag (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globo_plc has a link to the page Quintessential Capital Management confirming it is main player in discovering the fraud. talk
In addition, I ran a Google search on the company excluding the word "globo": "quintessential capital management" -globo. Nothing useful for establishing notability was returned, only 21 hits in all. So, at least for purposes of WP:GNG, one could make a case for sufficient coverage in sources dealing with the Globo case—but, then, I believe WP:ONEEVENT applies. Largoplazo (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just clicked all the links you listed and, except for the first one (regular Google search), which I already discussed above, there are zero hits, which doesn't qualify as easily found. Largoplazo (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Likewise--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yakag (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC) connected contributor[reply]
  • The last two are the same article. What they have to say about QCM is contained in a single sentence: "Quintessential Capital Management, another firm short on AAC, has written similar reports on the company’s drug testing practices and other issues within the company." This isn't significant coverage. Neither is mentioning that someone being quoted in an article runs a company, as in the WSJ article, significant coverage of the company. Largoplazo (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed one of the links, it was a re-print. Still, all the material taken together gives a measure of notoriety and of course WSJ is a highly reputable source. Best. Yakag (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC) connected contributor[reply]
  • The WSJ's reputation suits it for establishing verifiability but it's immaterial to a notability evaluation of a subject if it does no more than mention the subject's name in passing. But now I'm quibbling over individual sources with you. See what I wrote above about how, overall, one might indeed be able to make a case that there's sufficient coverage of Quintessential—but only in connection with that one case, so I wondered whether WP:ONEEVENT might come into play. No one has responded to that. Largoplazo (talk) 14:16, 28 July 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.
More