Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgeye Risk 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgeye Risk Management

Hedgeye Risk 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)

Smells of COI, promotion, and a general lack of notability. There are perhaps 2 articles on the company in the refs. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

AHBC: To those requesting deletion can I have more feedback as to make it more neutral? Are there any other deficiencies in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewhbc (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The references, particularly Bloomberg & Forbes are legitimate and the firm is therefore notable. I'll take a crack at expanding it a bit, I think some of the history section does need some cleanup but deletion is extreme in this case. Markvs88 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those references fail
    HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree. Markvs88 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet
  WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. In re sources mentioned above, Bloomberg is a non-editorial directory listing, while Forbes is actually Forbes.com/sites which is a "contributor"-submitted area (non-editorial). Neither is suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing NCORP and GNG.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 11 December 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.