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. There does not seem to be any agreement here on the subjective question of whether the sources presented constitute enough coverage to push the topic past the general notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lemelson Capital Management[edit]

Lemelson 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)

Article written by a single purpose account promoting Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson and his financial businesses. Lemelson Capital Management seems to be hanging its notability on its involvement (as a major shareholder) with the devaluation of WWE in March 2014. Its report is credited (usually indirectly) with the devaluation. However, I'm not even sure whether these snippets of news in financial media about one event are sufficient to meet WP:NCORP notbaility criteria. The article largely hung its notability on the performance of its partner hedge fund, Amvona, so I've removed some of these lengthy claims because Amvona and LCM seem to be different things. Many of the citations seem to be to a Seeking Alpha news source, which doesn't seem to be very mainstream and articles are sometimes written by Amvona staff (Lemelson?). Overall I'm not sure this investment firm meets WP:NCORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 2-year-old entity that puts out plenty of press releases. I also see brief mentions in the context of WWE. What I do not see, among the dozens of refs in the article, or in Google or Highbeam searchs, is substantial, independent coverage from reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Prominent financial management firm ranked multiple times by Barron's as top-performing (first and second) hedge fund in the world. Several very prominent examples of its research moving stock values (WWE, K&S, Ligand, etc.) that have been extensively covered in major mainstream media, including multiple references in USA Today, the country's largest circulated newspaper, The Street, Motley Fool and abundant other mainstream and financial media outlets. The fund is not a partner; it is the primary product offering of the firm. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Orthodox2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

To be clear, the Amvona hedge fund (not the company) was ranked as top performing. There are two examples of a company report affecting share values, which from what I can see was reported explicitly in the USA Today only once. And are these other financial news sources really mainstream?! Sionk (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm seeing several sources, but the same sources often seem to also talk about, get quotes from, or even use "Lemelson Capital" interchangeably with Emmanuel Lemelson. At this point I would say merge, but could use a better explanation as to why the two are independently notable? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get the strong impression Emmanuel/Greg Lemelson is the sole financer of the Amvona Fund, while Lemelson Capital Management is the legal/business frontage for his activities. But because no-one other than the company itself explains its activities, it's one of the major reasons to question its notability. Sionk (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of sources that quote Lemelson, it's reasonable to infer that he's considered an authority in his field, and thus passes a notability bar. This doesn't carry over to his management company, of course. Ravenswing 10:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If the Amvona hedge fund is notable, then it might qualify for an article. Since notability is not inherited, that doesn't qualify the management company for one. The article creator has certainly put up a blizzard of press releases, but it doesn't matter if you have five non-independent sources or fifty, not a single one of them can be used to support notability. Ravenswing 11:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The notability of the firm is fully established in vast independent mainstream and financial media coverage. In fact, aside from useful links to several of the firm's research reports, no primary sources are used here. The Amvona Fund is notable as an investment vehicle because of its performance rankings (top in the world), but the firm is more so because it has both managed the fund and produced the research reports that have been heavily cited in media as having tangible impact in the respective valuations of these stocks--that is, the extensive media coverage that establishes notability is more centered around the firm than the fund from my reading. Orthodox2014 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Then where are those sources? Coverage which establishes notability should be of articles about the subject, in independent sources, describing the subject in the "significant detail" required by the GNG. They can't be press releases, and they can't consist of quotes from the subject, and they can't be about the fund and mention the subject only in passing, and they have to be explicit and not inferred, and they need to be from reliable sources. Could you point some of those out, please? Ravenswing 19:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Here are a number of the mainstream and financial media references to Lemelson Capital Management included in this article:

• 1.) "Money manager betting against biotech firm Ligand Pharmaceuticals," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, June 16, 2014: [1].
• 2.) "Kulicke & Soffa shares surge after investor urges buyback," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 22, 2014: [2].
• 3.) ”World Wrestling pummeled four out of five rounds this week,” by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 11, 2014: [3].
• 4.) "Should the McMahons Still Be Running WWE?" by Daniel Kline, The Motley Fool, June 7, 2014: [4].
• 5.) "Will the WWE Network ever make money," by Daniel Kline, The Motley Fool, May 20, 2014: [5].
• 6.) "WWE stands to lose $45-$52 million in 2014: Investors to question Vince McMahon health on Monday?" by Jack Jorgensen, Fansided, Sports Illustrated, May 19, 2014: [6].
• 7.) "Kulicke & Soffa jumps; activist discloses stake, calls for buyback," Seeking Alpha, April 22, 2014: [7].
• 8.) "World Wrestling Entertainment: Why Investors Should Stay Away," by David Tristan Liu, Seeking Alpha, June 3, 2014: [8].
• 9.) "David Sims in Washington, Amvona gets it right on WWE," by Colin Lockey, Seeking Alpha Editor, Seeking Alpha, April 12, 2014: [9].
• 10.) "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.: Yum, I Love Eating Crow (WWE)," by Michael Ranalli, Seeking Alpha, May 28, 2014: [10].
• 11.) "WWE's stock smackdown is a blow to Vince McMahon's credibility," "Breaking News," Seeking Alpha, May 17, 2014: [11].
• 12.) ”WWE can’t pull out of slide,” Seeking Alpha, April 11, 2014: [12].
• 13.) "Lemelson goes long World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.," by VW Staff, Value Walk, May 16, 2016: [13].
• 14.) "Amvona Short Call Sends WWE Tumbling,” by Clayton Browne, ValueWalk, April 7, 2014: [14].
• 15.) "Kulicke and Soffa Industries: Large Cash Pile and Activist Involvement," by Alex Gavrish, ValueWalk, April 29, 2014: [15].
• 16.) "The Amvona Fund Up 22% in May After 17% Gain in April," by VW Staff, ValueWalk, June 5, 2014: [16].
• 17.) “WWE profitable or on the ropes?” by Sarah Barry James, SNL Kagan, April 15, 2014: [17].
• 18.) "Biggest takeaways from WWE's May 19 business outlook investor call," by Chris Mueller, Bleacher Report, May 19, 2014: [18].
• 19.) "Shares of Ligand Pharma tick lower following word from Lemelson Capital Fund has initiated short position in stock," by Hal Lindon, Benzinga, June 16, 2014: [19].
• 20.) "WWE wrestling fans should get to know Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson," by Dan Marsiglia, Rant Sports, May 21, 2014: [20]. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Items #1,2,3) Brief and casual mention of the subject in a short article about something else.

  Items #4,5) Presuming that Motley Fool's website constitutes an independent, reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking, this is still a brief and casual mention of the subject in a short article about something else.

  Item #6) Name only mentioned, and just the once, in a brief article about something else.

  Item #7) Quite aside from that Seeking Alpha is a site largely comprised of so-called "Instablogs" and almost entirely comprised of self-submitted articles, it can't be described as a reliable source. Beyond that, quotes from the subject explicitly cannot be used to sustain notability of the subject, and that's all this brief piece mentions of the subject.

  Items #8,9,10) Is a blog, pure and simple, as well as subject being quoted about something else.

  Items #11,12) Name only mentioned, and just the once, in a brief article about something else.

  Item #13) Blatantly a press release.

  Items #14,15,16) Blogsite with unestablished reliability as a reliable source, and name only mentioned, and just the once, in a brief article about something else.

  Item #17) Website with unproven reliability as a reliable source, and subject only quoted, as above.

  Item #18) Quite aside from that Bleacher Report is user-submitted (want to see links to my own articles on that site?), subject only mentioned in quote from press release.

  Item #19) Website with unproven reliability as a reliable source, and article's behind a paywall.

  Item #20) RantSports.com? Seriously?

  Honestly, I'm not out to bust your chops here, but please read the GNG carefully, because I get the impression you just haven't. The GNG requires that an article sustaining notability must "discuss the subject in significant detail" and debars sources which are not independent, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Quotes from the subject do not count. Casual name drops do not count. Press releases do not count. A single sentence does not count. Blogs and fringe websites do not count. Now you show me a Forbes or a Barron's article, say, that discusses LCM (not the fund and not World Wrestling Entertainment) and runs a dozen or two paragraphs, doing nothing but discussing LCM, and that's a good reference. Listing every website you can find the company name mentioned in a Google search? Those aren't good references. Ravenswing 23:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename, summarize and expand as Amvona. There is interesting history to the Amvona name, how it started, earlier incarnations, etc. A brief summary is in Emmanuel Lemelson, but most of it is in deleted content from a year or so ago: it was one of the articles - as was Emmanuel Gregory Lemelson - deleted as a result of the Wiki-PR debacle. Some versions of those deleted articles were very well referenced (similar to this article, in fact) and the content could be resurrected, reworked and merged with this article to make a complete history of the Amvona name. This would help to reduce the unduly promotional tone of the current article, which very nearly falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS and definitely over-emphasises recent events.  —SMALLJIM  00:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One further concern: Given that Lemelson's article describes him as a Greek Orthodox priest, could Orthodox2014 be Lemelson himself? There might be WP:COI in play, which we ought to know. Ravenswing 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: @Ravenswing: I appreciate your reference points generally but think these (and other) references are consistent with those needed to establish the company's notability, and, no, I am not Lemelson. As I read through these references in closer detail:

• 1.) "Money manager betting against biotech firm Ligand Pharmaceuticals," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, June 16, 2014: http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/06/16/money-manager-betting-against-biotech-firm-ligand-pharmaceuticals/\: This USA Today article cannot be discounted as an article about another topic because it isn't. The "money manager" referenced in the headline is Lemelson Capital Management and the entire article from the headline to the lede to 100 percent of the article's content is about the company's research and its impact. And, of course, USA Today is not just another newspaper. This Wikipedia article shows that it is the second largest circulated newspaper in the U.S. and the 14th largest globally: List of newspapers in the world by circulation.
• 2.) "Kulicke & Soffa shares surge after investor urges buyback," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 22, 2014: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/04/22/kulicke--soffa-shares-rocket-after-investor-urges-buyback/8016399/ More or less the same point here. This USA Today article is not about another topic. The article is about the surge in the stock after the "investor" (see headline), Lemelson Capital Management, released a report urging a share repurchase and the ensuing impact. From the headline ("investor") to the lede to the entire content from beginning to end, the article is about Lemelson Capital Management and its research.
• 3.) ”World Wrestling pummeled four out of five rounds this week,” by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 11, 2014: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/04/07/world-wrestling-gets-wall-street-style-take-down/7418043/ This USA Today article largely again centers around Lemelson Capital Management and the impact of its research report on another stock.
• 4 and 5.) I had not really heard much about this news outlet either, but this article on it describes it as a sizable media outlet employing 300 people: The Motley Fool. Both 4 and 5 are largely focused on the impact of another report from the company. 4 includes a sub-head and section about the company. 5 less so, but Lemelson Capital Management's analysis is a centerpiece of the article.
• 6.) This Sports Illustrated article references the company's report as the predominant basis for major concerns about the referenced stock, suggesting the company's influence.
• 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.) I do not know much about Seeking Alpha, but 7 references the company in the headline, all of them seem to again point to the impact and notability of the company's research, and 9 is by lined by a Seeking Alpha editor.
• 13.) I had not looked at this one carefully enough. I concede your point on it and have removed it from the article.
• 14, 15, 16.) I do not see how these are articles about another topic when the headlines and content of each are about the company and its research impact.
• 17.) Never heard of SNL Kagan before either, but this article certainly describes it as a "news and analysis" outlet: SNL Financial. If there are questions about their reliability, I don't see anything that suggests that. This article too points to the impact of Lemelson Capital Management's research analysis.
• 18.) This article is by a columnist. Their website says they are owned by Turner Broadcasting, which I believe is largely credible, and the article again seems to reinforce the company's impact.
• 19.) I do not know much about Benzinga either, but a quick Google search shows that Forbes publishes their articles and describes them as offering "full coverage of all aspects of the financial markets": [21].
• 20.) Never heard of Rants Sports either, but this Forbes article and others seem to describe it is a large media outlet ("ranked 2nd in its space and the 12th largest sports platform in the the United States by comScore) and I do not see anything that calls into question its credibility: [22].

I agree this company is not Goldman Sachs or J.P. Morgan with thousands of examples of their notability, but the company's fund was reported as being ranked top in the world several times and their research appears clearly consequential. Those things, I believe, establish the subject's notability. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Sorry, but Wikipedia's guidelines just don't agree. A common mistake of the new and inexperienced editor is to interpret Wikipedia's definition of "notability" as "I think it's important." It's not. It's this: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." To quote further:

  "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material ... Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. [A] one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial.

  That's what you've got here; many, many fleeting, trivial references, and articles which despite your assertions are not about LCM. They're almost all about the WWE. Plainly you're heavily invested in saving this article, but unless you come up with references that qualify under Wikipedia's guidelines, that's going to fall short. Ravenswing 17:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Complex recommendation I've been following the primary author's work for some time now. He appears to be too involved and partisan to write on topics related to Mr. Lemelson in accordance with long-established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In other words, he "doesn't get" the purpose of Wikipedia, and should avoid editing articles in which he has (or appears to have) strong feelings about until such time as he does. Because of this, I am recommending that this page be stub-ified and the primary editor edit as if Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines applied to him. He should be allowed to remove material that violates policies, minor edits like fixing typographical errors, but not much else. He should recommend all other changes to the article's talk page. I make this recommendation as an alternative to WP:Blow it up and start over and I make it on the assumption that this company does meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Due to the morass of over-sourcing, it's difficult for me to determine if this company even qualifies for an article, but for the moment (subject to change at any time), I'm willing to assume it does. For the record, I would not object to outright deletion under a "blow it up and start over" closer-comment. Should the page Emmanuel Lemelson be nominated for deletion or should an RFC on that page's future be started, I will probably give a similar recommendation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Update I also have no objection to Smalljim's idea of "Rename, summarize and expand as Amvona." If the article is found to not adequately demonstrate this company's notability, I would have no objection to keeping the history but turning the page into a protected-redirect to Emmanuel Lemelson#Business career as an alternative to deletion. As the discussion regarding the sources appears to be largely a 2-way dialog, I would say there isn't yet a consensus on whether the listed sources are suitable enough to demonstrate that this company meet's WP:Notability. If I have time, I may look through all of the references and chime in. Perhaps another editor can do the same. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: It's really rather a safe bet that there's no consensus that the listed sources suffice to meet the GNG, since the only editor to state that they do (who has actually reviewed the sources) is the article creator himself. There's a clear Delete consensus here, although I've no objection to a redirect to the Lemelson article; it's a reasonable search term.

  That being said, you're wrong here: at AfD, we cannot just "assume" that sources are good; it is our duty to check if they are, or else not express an opinion on them if we're not inclined to do so. I don't claim it wasn't time-consuming for me to check each and every reference in the article, but I did so, and I couldn't have made a recommendation on deleting or keeping the article if I hadn't. Ravenswing 20:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Off-topic comment that really should be discussed in a new RFC should this article survive or be re-created: I recommend that all future editors of this article who have a WP:Conflict of interest should be explicitly required to either declare their COI or restrict themselves to editing in accordance with WP:Conflict of interest as if they did have a conflict of interest. In other words, I'm recommending that if you edit in a way that violates WP:COI, you must immediately declare your conflict of interest. Supporting or opposing this recommendation will influence whether a formal RFC is started, but until there is a clear consensus to do this as evidenced by an RFC, it won't be enforceable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Additional references have been added by the primary editor as recently as today. I have not evaluated these references yet but the closing administrator is encouraged to check all references added since this AFD started which have not been discussed, and determine if they have overcome enough objections raised here to change the outcome or to warrant re-listing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. Yes, the article author does keep making a slew of small edits to the article, but I see no noticeable improvement to sourcing with respect to notability. References remain a mass of press releases and other primary sources; lightly warmed-over repeats of these press releases in non-RS or dubious sources (and often difficult to tell if even meant to be objective reporting or advertorial); and side mentions in pieces about WWE and a few other companies. I still see no substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. SHOW ME THE MONEY! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The author added only one new source [23], which is a profile of Emmanuel Lemelson, not about his company. The rest of the edits were tinkering with the formatting. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point, I'm frankly bewildered that a SPA writing about a field as exacting and rules-driven as financial management has such a hard time grasping Wikipedia's rules about how sources qualify as supporting notability of a subject, and really can't come up with any explanations within the bounds of assuming good faith. Under the circumstances, the SPA's denial of COI looks rather threadbare. Ravenswing 13:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I got bored of waiting, so I've started cleaning the article up myself. More to follow, probably. I don't mind if it ends up being deleted, it's all good practice at copyediting...  —SMALLJIM  00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article has recently undergone or is undergoing significant editing. Comments made prior to these edits may no longer apply to the current version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that once already. My comments above still stand. What 'significant' edits have taken place? It has been mainly changes in formatting. Sionk (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've struck my earlier !vote. I haven't substantially changed my opinion, but this expresses it more clearly. There's insufficient evidence that LCM has any enduring notability: it has apparently only existed for about two years and the three events which are its only chance of showing notability occurred in just a few months. The content from here should be merged with Emmanuel Lemelson, where much of it already exists. I apologise for my former vagueness and may I suggest that anyone interested who hasn't yet expressed a clear opinion should now do so, to give the closing admin a decent shot at determining consensus!  —SMALLJIM  17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...for now. I think this is a borderline notable article, but it's prominent enough in the USA Today and Motley Fool articles and the Seeking Alpha reports to justify keeping to me. For those of you above wondering about SNL Kagan, I believe it's a publication by SNL Financial. I thought this was a decent source, although I see it was deleted. HtownCat (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per HtownCat. And I note that the bar for notability is being overstated in at least one way, above, where it is suggested that acceptable sources must be principally about the subject. I've learned in another AFD differently, that substantial coverage from within an article about something else, can count. I respect the Motley Fool as an important, influential, credible source on financial matters, by the way. --doncram 22:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what is well sourced to a section on Fr Lemelson. Most sources purporting to Notability seems to speak more of the Man's notability than the companies. SPACKlick (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2014 (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.