Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atticus Capital


 * 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 keep. Star  Mississippi  01:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Atticus Capital

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A former hedge fund. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Creator is indefinitely blocked. Uhooep (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Evaluating the sourcing for these sorts of AfDs is tricky because there are untold numbers of passing mentions and non-independent sources, but on balance I think there's probably enough here for notability even under WP:NCORP's very strict definition of significant coverage. Here's an article in The Times: although it discusses a corporate announcement, it also provides analysis, opining that "Atticus's downsizing is another sign that the era [of] high-profile, aggressive hedge funds, that publicly berated companies' management and flaunted their connections to the rich and famous, has ended". This article in the Wall Street Journal describes the company's history, noting that the fund "angered some investors in March 2008 with how it treated its investment in Deutsche Boerse" and has "received unwanted attention because of" various scandals involving its co-chairman Nathaniel Philip Rothschild. Here's an article from The Daily Telegraph discussing the company's tremendous losses during the financial crisis, and here's another one describing both its "reputation as a formidable active manager" and Lord Rothschild's decision to withdraw his money from the firm owned by his son due to its poor performance. This article in the Financial Times discusses how the fund "helped dictate the course of mega-mergers and corporate strategy at some of the world's biggest companies - and made a fortune in the process", but it also describes its "galling" losses and the fact that its executives will consequently receive no bonuses. I think it's clear that these sources, which come from some of the world's most reliable outlets and which discuss the fund in significant (and often unflattering) detail, are far more than just the routine churnalism that most Wall Street firms generate. The fund is also discussed in these two books published by Wiley, showing that there's coverage from outside the often-ephemeral business press. There are many more sources available in ProQuest and elsewhere, but I think these ones are enough to show an NCORP pass. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep For the additional sources identified above, and the fact that they lost $5 billion according to The New York Times. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  21:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.