Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenview Capital Management

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. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glenview Capital Management

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable hedge fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Created by Special:Contributions/OnceaMetro currently indef blocked as a spam-only account. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The usual level where we have an article for investment companies is$ 1billion capital under management. It could reasonably be argued that due to the expansion of this sector of the economy, that's no longer a sufficiently notable level, but this firm;; has $16 billion, whichis enough to presume notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: I don't think that's quite right. For me, a good rule of thumb is $1bln for venture capital firms that are investing in new companies, in relatively small amounts. Hedge funds are just investing in stocks, etc., and for them $16blm "under management" is rather routine. In any case, I've not seen significant coverage in my WP:BEFORE searches. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided; there do seem to be some mentions but they're largely about people affiliated with the company rather than the company itself; the SeekingAlpha portfolio summary also isn't quite what I'd want to see. A redirect to Larry Robbins would probably be preferable to deletion. Regardless, a lot of the current content is bad and should be removed; to start with I doubt any of the awards listed are relevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This firm is a big deal and widely reported on. Certainly the most interesting stories in RS focus on the founder, but the firm itself is independently notable with plenty of in-depth coverage of its activities above and beyond what would be considered "routine coverage". See for example its history with Cigna[1][2][3], DowDupont[4][5] and Tenet[6][7][8]. Needs improvement, but definitely not a delete. Pegnawl (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've begun editing the entry to address concerns cited above; there's plenty more that can still be introduced to the entry or expanded upon based on the refs available, which are plentiful. Pegnawl (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Larry Robbins. I understand where DGG is coming from but nothing in the guidelines assigns a monetary value to notability. Instead, the notability criteria for companies and organizations requires two references that provide significant in-depth intellectually-independent coverage on the company. The WP:NCORP guidelines further clarifies that articles that are substantially based on company announcements or run-of-the-mill listings fail the criteria. Also, notability isn't inherited - therefore the articles profiling the CEO or commenting on their involvement with various business transactions, no matter how contentious, likewise fails the criteria. From my reading, not a single one of the references provided here or in the article, nor any references I could locate myself, meet the criteria. Also, from WP:ORGIND
Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
The references provided above by Pegnawl fail the criteria when measured against these requirements. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument for merge would have to apply to George Soros and Soros Fund Management too, so I disagree. For WP:NCORP the first bullet under examples of substantial coverage is a news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger. This article also has been changed substantially since the proposed deletion and should be voted on what is there right now.--FrankTursetta (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But Glenview wasn't the subject of a prolonged corporate merger (the point being made in NCORP) so that isn't relevant to this AfD? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: comparing the founder to George Soros is very close to WP:EINSTEIN and WP:OSE; none are valid arguments in a deletion discussion. In any case, no sources to meet WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND have been offered in this debate, and I don't believe that they exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Posted above are six refs for your consideration, and a few more added directly to entry. To HighKing's comment about these refs being based on company announcements, therefore trivial, ignores the nine examples of trivial coverage that NCORP lists under this bullet - none of which apply to these refs. It also fails to acknowledge the very first bullet under examples of substantial coverage, and yes, one would think that being the catalyst of or a major player in contentious multinational merger discussions applies when the firm name appears throughout an article. Each are in an independent source (and not churnalism far as I can tell), so I'm not sure why ORGIND is relevant, and only half of them include mention of Robbins (in all cases the primary focus is the firm). Pegnawl (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Using arguments such as "other stuff exists", e.g. about the article on George Soros (even if correct about that) leads nowhere. Subject simply fails WP:NCORP. The efforts of fellow editors, especially members of related task forces, are welcome and quite admirable, at least by me, but the contested article is well presented puffery. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : There seems to be a blooming of Wikipedia text promoting financial and investment sector corporations, of late. Could be a sign of the US economy moving further up. Or maybe down. Or that we have too many worker bees around. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2018 (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.