Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarHedge


 * 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 in light of the unanimity of respondents. AfD is not cleanup. Skomorokh, barbarian  18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MarHedge

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability. Nothing on Google either. Pmlineditor     ∞    15:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Inside the industry they've been quoted as a reliable source and have been referred to as an authoritative source by: Power Markets Week, (September 19, 2005, Pg. 1, 1737 words) CFO The Magazine for Senior Financial Executives (article Easy target? Don't open your wallet to an investment pitch you don't understand. May 2006, Pg. 97, 1258 words, and article Easy target? Don't open your wallet to an investment pitch you don't understand, May 2006, Pg. 97, 1258 words) EContent (article Financial Risk Management Sources: A Walk on the Wild Side December 1999, Pg. 16-25, 3214 words, Cagan, Penny) Registered Rep. (article TenToWatch2006) August 1, 2006, Pg. 62, 4252 words) Outside of the industry they've been quoted as a reliable and noteworthy source by the New Yorker and others. I've put the full list of articles/news transcripts who feature this company here. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is terrible and the 'magazine' is quoted as being 'Managed Account Reports LLC' more than anything else. Having said that! This journal meets 3 of the 5 notability criteria for magazines. Namely:
 * 1) are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area
 * 2) are frequently cited by other reliable sources
 * 3) are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets
 * I did some more research and found that it was indeed notable; however the article needs considerable work to be encylopedic. Pmlineditor      ∞    16:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's no reason to delete it though surely? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Ulrich's includes it, as "M. A. R. Hedge", giving : Variant names: Managed Account Reports Hedge;  MARHedge; and Title History:	 Formed by the merger of (1979-2005): M A R (1531-0264); Which was formerly: Managed Account Reports (0197-5382); (1994-2005): Hedge (1531-0256); Strategies. It is not indexed. Evaluating market newsletters is outside my scope of expertise, but that something is included in a list of sources, or mentioned in an article, is not proof of notability--I'd  like to see the context of those citations. .    DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see a few of them by searching through sites like USA TODAY, if you want to pick a few others out of the list I'd be happy to post them for you! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * if you have the references, add them to the article, not your talk page. You dont have to post the text of articles, you do have to give the full references, to print and online both if possible.  What is needed in context is enough to show they are substantially about the company, not just mentions in a general article about Madoff or whatever. And not letters to the editor. If they are columnists, say so--the opinion of noted columnists is a good source for their opinion if they are indeed notable. As for how many you should add, you should add one to at least 4 or 5 of the most  substantial discussions. with at least one to justify each particular statement in the article.      DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted I've added some references, not all of them by any stretch of the imagination (I don't understand hedge funds, I can't read half of them), hope it's helpful! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Needs work, but seems to be notable. User:Panyd/Lexis is rather convincing, but I'd be interested to see the context too, if someone experienced can pick some key ones out. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.