Wiki How:Articles for deletion/Barnegat Fund 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. Jamie^☆S93 23:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Barnegat Fund Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Little claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Total of 45 non-wiki ghits, none of which shows notability; zero gnews hits. Prod contested by new editor who cut most of the article but did not address notability issues. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional, no real claim of notability either. isn't this a {db-spam} candidate? Hairhorn (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I declined a speedy as empty at an earlier stage, but thee is no evidence to be found for notability. DGG (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A brochure for an investment fund. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an advert for a non-notable company. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I couldn't disagree with you all more. If this article should be deleted, then so should these:

Nothing in this article is promotional or solicitous. There are only facts and descriptions about what Barnegat is trying to do to provide steady returns.--Justinlexington (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, the notability issue is more of a problem than the promotional issue. I only found 24 non-wikipedia mentions of the company in a Google search, and none in a Google news search. In order to meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTE guidelines, there must be "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Dawn Bard (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try their former name "Man-Barnegat Fund" in a Google search & Google news search--Justinlexington (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 16 ghits and one in news? There isn't anything there that changes my mind. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if it was notable, where are the sources?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 19:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable company that doesn't meet WP:CORP and, probably more important, at least part of the article is a copyvio of www.treue.com/styles.html Yintaɳ  20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linked article has been removed. Reference this archive.org cache instead.R.Vinson (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP there is plenty of coverage on this hedge fund an others o Reuters[1] news wires. People interested in finance could be very interested in the story of Barnegat Fund.--Justinlexington (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You only need to vote "keep" once, and if you have links to reliable independent sources, then I suggest you add them to the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP if you have access to a Bloomberg Terminal then you can see all the news stories written about this hedge fund and others similar to it.--Djbarnes (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — Djbarnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP KEEP KEEP Don’t be so quick to nominate this for deletion. It is obviously under construction and incomplete and can be improved. Plus, I’m very interested in learning about the often secretive hedge fund world. Lots of times, any published info on hedge funds is in expensive financial industry periodicals that common folks like me don’t have access too. Leave this article and other hedge fund articles in place so that we can all be better informed about them.--FredBund (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — FredBund (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hedge fund strategies are a valid article when properly referenced and not attached to a company entry. R.Vinson (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how do I insert this news article that mentions Barnegat's performance "Pensions & Investments" 'Many hedge fund strategies reach positive territory in Q1' [2]--FredBund (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That article mentions "Man Barnegat Fund Ltd" - do we even know that it's the same thing as Barnegat Fund Management? Even if it is, this reference alone does not provide the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that Wikipedia requires for inclusion. I will add it to the article as an external link. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Barnegat Fund was formerly known as "Man Barnegt Fund Ltd" try toogling either one and you'll get to the fund's home page.--Justinlexington (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Man Barnegat Fund" gets just 18 non-wiki ghits, and a single gnews hit, none of which show WP:Notability is met.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this articles is an advert. if any unbiased strategy information exists it should be properly referenced and added to a non-company specific wiki. R.Vinson (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this company does not seem to be notable and the article is writtem like an advert. Smartse (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Keep voters FredBund and Justinlexington have been indef blocked as puppets of Djbarnes[3]. I'm striking their votes. Yintaɳ  14:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:CORP.Tyrenon (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Based on recent vandalism to this AFD, I have listed User:GangUpOnMe as a probable sock of User:Djbarnes. SPI report here. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (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.